Malthus simply happened to live at the wrong time, and draw the wrong conclusions.
At his time the population in the UK was growing by more than 10% every decade (currently under 5% and only by immigration) and there was no real advancement in food production, things that changed dramatically in the next century. So, had he been born in 1866 not 1766 things would have been different.
I agree, but I think it is partially correct. I think one flaw in the theory is that the production increase is assumed to be linear, even though the labor pool is assumed to increase exponentially.
Another flaw is that population is assumed to be growing exponentially, while we already see that it is slowing down globally, and many countries even have declining population.
This! People look at the poor countries growing in population and think this will be like that forever, no it won't.
Fertility rates are decreasing all over the world with the exception of Sub-Saharian states:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IN-PK-BD-VN-TH-IDThe population is still growing right now at this speed in Asia because the people who are making kids now are the ones from the boom in the '80-'00 but the number of kids they make is two to three times less than their parents. The western world has already gone through this, South America and Asia are next, then the Middle East and Africa and at that point, we might even see a decline.
Education is doing its things, there won't be any catastrophe.
Everyone should watc this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348