I’m still not seeing how you can say the author “seems to be a Malthus adherent”. That may be true but I don’t see how you can conclude that from this article. (I haven’t read any other articles from her so I can’t say is she is or isn’t)
"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
That population does invariably increase when the means of substinence increase "The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p 61
"Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 18 in Oxford World's Classics reprint.
While it is certainly a good idea to look at resources and their availability, I don't accept Malthus' belief that a population will expand just to fill up resources, and I am not reading the article from that perspective. In fact, his theory "That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase" is notably false today. In the past 30 years, more people have been lifted out of poverty than ever before in history, and while Malthus would predict a baby boom to fill the newly created resources, sinking the population back into misery, the opposite has happened. The birth rates worldwide have collapsed.
The author does not take into account the collapsing birthrate and aging of society, and quickly approaching peak of our population in the calculations of resource useage. The author is only arguing from the perspective of resource scarcity, and that the population carrying capacity will overreach those limits and be reduced by "misery." This is what Malthus would argue if he were here today.