On the "pro" side, war has always spurred technological advances. Compare aviation technology before and after WW II. Way ahead of the projected curve.
But the bottom line of that, as I read it, was they started with an idea, found some data, and conflated the two. Two groups, environmental stress/scarcities & dead people. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I don't like it when people want to torture promising potential insights by trying to insist on more supporting data than currently exists, and use the lack of it as an excuse to dismiss them. But in this case, I think they could use at least a tad of that approach.