[Mxsmanic]

Frank Stearns writes:

The point was that as a practical matter it's likely the planet could carry another
3B or so over the next 30-40 years, without such gigantic changes. That's breathing
time for additional game-changing technology to come online and perhaps start
looking outward on a multiple-century horizon.

History seems to show that human beings will not address a problem until a
crisis arises, and then not very well. So breathing room probably won't help.

I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides?

Probably government authorities, as in China.

Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority?

Individual countries can take the same actions.

While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The
problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and
control?

What's so special about it? We issue licenses for driving and piloting and
practicing law or medicine. Why not license parents? The future of
civilization depends on how we raise children, so it's very ironic that
parenthood is totally unregulated, whereas we worry about licensing
cosmetologists who will have no lasting effect on anything.

Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly.

It's working in China.

I'd rather face enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter
how well intentioned. But you might perhaps prefer otherwise.

Regulation does not equate to totalitarianism.