For the love of god, are you really arguing that overpopulation isn't a problem because there isn't a food capacity problem yet? Are the world's resources literally infinite to you? Are you saying that our massive population increasing the global temperature by 7-10 degrees Celsius through greenhouse-producing activity isn't going to impact our food capacity? Our water supply? Are the planet's biodiversity, forestation, and sea levels totally unrelated to population and demand for resources, in your mind? Do you not see a wee timing problem in pushing everyone into the first world and waiting for people to start having fewer babies? Are you even sure culturally speaking that everyone everywhere *would* suddenly have fewer babies? Have you even read research on the issues of biocapacity and our currently ecological footprint, at all, ever? At what point does the finiteness of the world's resources finally make this a resource issue for you instead of an economic one?Hmm.
The answer to the question "Do people in the United States ever die from malnutrition" is "Every day."
The answer to the question "Do people in the United States ever die from malnutrition chiefly as a result of not being able to afford food as opposed to other, less purely economic reasons," the answer is "Not really" or at least "Extremely rarely."
In the US, actually dying from lack of food is quite rare and generally involves other problems. If a person is incapable of feeding themselves, either because they're too young or infirm, lack of care can easily lead to starvation. This happens far too often, but doesn't generally indicate that the caretaker was unable to afford food as much as they were negligent or worse. A person who is mentally ill--as far too many of the homeless are--may wind up starving to death, but again, access to food isn't necessarily the primary problem there. There are sufficient shelters, soup kitchens, and hospitals in most communities that a person who truly has no money can keep body and soul together for an indefinite period provided they actually eat every few days.
As a purely economic situation, starvation does not really exist in any significant way in the US today.
Anyways, there's zero evidence that poverty rises in correlation with population. The World Bank, for example, suggests that poverty is hitting an all-time low despite our population. By almost any human measurefood consumption, life expectancy, access to clean water, etc.life is getting better, not worse. Insistence that we've reached our limit has been around for centuries (you may remember the declaration in the '70s that "hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death" in just a few years. Of course, no such thing happened), and there's no indication that they're suddenly right this time.
The ultimate irony here, however, is that population alarmists have been responsible for more human suffering that the catastrophe they claim to be preventing. You may remember India's massive and brutal sterilization campaign (with about 2000 women killed in botched procedures), or China hunting down women and forcing them to abort, or women in Africa being forcibly injected with contraceptives. The victims of this are invariably poor minorities - when they say there are too many people, they don't mean too many Swedes, they mean too many Africans or Asians or Arabs. These are unrecognized tragedies in the name of some bullshit pseudo-science, and those babbling about "overpopulation" should not be held in any higher regard than climate change deniers or anti-vaccers.
I need to go lie down.