Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in a nuclear winter scenario Did you read the article? I think you are making its point, which is that it is bad but not as bad as most people think.
> I would expect things to stabilize at a technology level of maybe the late 19th/early 20th century and start back up This is the part you should be concerned about even if a nuclear winter doesn't or can't occur. Ask yourself how many people were alive at the end of the 19th century / early 20th and then compare that to today. Remember that it wasn't for lack of trying and that this was pre-birthcontrol. Then imagi…
You get it. Digital computers appeared in the 1950's and have dramatically increased the carrying capacity of the planet. People thinking "oh, life wasn't so bad in the late 19th/early 20th century" aren't thinking through the technology available then would reduce the carrying capacity of the planet by 60%. 60% of humanity perishing in a relatively short period of time has never happened before and should be thought of as a civilization threatening event. The collapse of modern civilization will set us back for centuries.