An independent thinker you mean? Check out his website. I see that the item I linked to appears in his "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" section. 
Yeah right.
Nice crayons.
Now... about those efficiency improvements...
ETA
Are you suggesting that carrying capacity can be doubled by 'efficiency improvements'?
What did you have in mind?
well, we currently throw away over 50% of the food grown for use in this country (supply chain and domestic waste combined). That could be a starting point.
We could not do stuff like exporting x tonnes of a food and importing x tonnes of the same food.
It's pretty much guaranteed that the vehicle fleet on the road in 20 years time will be in the region of twice as efficient as the current fleet simply from the old gas guzzlers being taken out of the fleet as they reach the end of their lifes and replaced with new ones at current fuel efficiency levels, never mind ongoing improvements in that time.
that sort of thing really.
Plenty of low hanging fruit still their to be plucked before we ought to be getting into 'the end is nigh' territory. Yes, we could do with plucking it a lot faster and not pretending there's no looming energy crisis at all, but that's a damn site different to the sort of drivel this guy you quoted is spouting.
btw - I'm not necessarily suggesting carrying capacity can be doubled as such, although I'm also not saying it couldn't be, I wasn't putting a number on it. I was merely making the point that the graph being used to show die off is far too simplistic, and has zero relevance to the situation with human population growth vs resource depletion as it makes no allowance for waste of resources or consequent efficiency potential.
The graph derives from stuff like overgrazing of cattle on defined areas of land without additional nutrient input potential. Cows aren't particularly wasteful creatures, there's not much wasted between ground and mouth, so not much chance of waste reduction or efficiency savings from the cows if the population increases beyond the carrying capacity of the land at the level of grazing the cows need to sustain themselves. We on the other hand are currently incredibly wasteful in our use of resources of all types, meaning there is huge scope for increasing the effective carrying capacity of the planet by us simply being less wasteful of it's resources.
Or, to put it another way, there is an alternative to seeing 6 billion people die off as this guy seems to be postulating to be a likely scenario. It involves simply reducing the energy, food and resource use of each individual person to a level at which the planet can sustain all however many billion of us are around at the time.
Given these 2 options, why is it that people like this chose to bang on so much about the 6 billion people dying type option instead of the other perfectly viable option that doesn't involve most of the planet being wiped out?
/tangent
