[Mxsmanic]

Frank Stearns writes:

The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably
at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects.

And why should these be carried out, instead of simply limiting the population
to a lower number? The fewer people there are to support, the higher the
standard of living that they can enjoy with finite resources.

As far as the "wrong" people having babies... I understand the point,
but uh oh, you could sure get in some trouble for that.... Who decides?

But find a way to make those populations prosper, and they too will start having
fewer babies.

Yes.

The "wrong" people are always the ones reproducing the most prolifically,
because they are poor and uneducated, and when you are poor and uneducated,
there isn't much else to do except reproduce (or have sex with reproduction as
a side effect).

As populations become more educated and affluent, they find many other things
to do besides procreate, and the rate of population increase falls. In many
developed countries, the rate of natural increase is flat or in decline. The
most important segment of the population to educate is women.

Also, societies with great inequalities between the sexes may have higher
rates of increase, because the only role available for women in such societies
is motherhood (and, in some cases, chores).

And don't forget those who've looked at a larger time scale, say to the year 3000,
and how we might be having serious issues with *too little* population growth.

The population can always be increased rapidly (or decreased rapidly) by birth
control. It only takes a generation to dramatically reduce or increase the
population.