A man made Malthusian crisis is still a Malthusian crisis, crop failure and improper agricultural policy have a bearing on how big a population can subsist.
1% of the world's then population passed away in the Irish famine. Ireland's population is now 5 million and Britain's around 60. Ireland's population was extraordinarily large compared to the subsistence farmer's yields in 1845. Here's a chart:
Ireland may have been a net exporter of food during the famine, but I would hope you agree that policy can bring about a very literal shortage of food.
Massive subsistence farming in Ireland was not caused by the size of the population. If there were half as many people in Ireland in 1945, there would not be twice as much food to go around. The half-sized population would still have been packed into as little land as they could survive on. A crop failure would still mean starvation.
There was no surplus to fall back on, not because the population was so large that it overwhelmed reserves, but because the surplus wealth of Ireland was being systematically extracted so no such reserves could be built.
Correction to my earlier comment: it was 0.1% of the world's then population, not 1%.
The size of the population in Ireland was enabled by subsistence farming of the potato. The powers that were, did not have a control on the number of children per family. The spurt in population was risky and had Malthus' projections been heeded, population based checks on resource limits working as a preventive measure would have limited population growth rather than the death rate doing so.
Plots of land were handed down by subdivision among the male children in a family[0]. The population increased, but the land available to them remained the same.
Crop loss was estimated at one third to one half [1].
So to refute your point, if there was a smaller population, the land occupied by the total population would arguably have remained the same, and one third to one half of a crop loss could have been sustained without starvation and famine.
I am still convinced that it was a real life Malthusian crisis, aided and abetted by systematic exploitation. I do not think it's a stretch to say exploitation has not been eradicated. It's a certainty that children are still brought in to the world without a guarantee that they can be provided for.
We can argue for resource redistribution to prevent crises arising, however Malthusian 'prophecy' is predictive, and the Irish Famine was predictable without resource redistribution. I would argue we have already had a Malthusian crisis. I would further argue it's hubris to say that another is impossible.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_famine#Tenants.2C_subdiv...
This paragraph only alludes to the process of subdivision, with only a small amount of research, you will see that it resulted in population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied in 1845.
"Following the famine, reforms were implemented making it illegal to further divide land holdings."
1% of the world's then population passed away in the Irish famine. Ireland's population is now 5 million and Britain's around 60. Ireland's population was extraordinarily large compared to the subsistence farmer's yields in 1845. Here's a chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IrelandEuropePopulation17...
Ireland may have been a net exporter of food during the famine, but I would hope you agree that policy can bring about a very literal shortage of food.