I'd question the assumption that there's really all that much scarcity first; given the lopsided distribution of wealth worldwide and the abundance of wide open spaces, the world is likely quite capable of supporting double or triple our current population with some serious changes in distribution. More people means more work means more stuff being made, as well.
Also, once you feed and educate people they have a lot fewer kids just by the natural consequences of those things.
Long story short, it's going to necessitate some major societal changes, but I see no reason for it not to be sustainable, especially if we factor in space:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd question the assumption that there's really all that much scarcity first; given the lopsided distribution of wealth worldwide and the abundance of wide open spaces, the world is likely quite capable of supporting double or triple our current population with some serious changes in distribution. More people means more work means more stuff being made, as well. Also, once you feed and educate people they have a lot fewer kids just by the natural consequences of those things. Long story short, it's going to necessitate some major societal changes, but I see no reason for it not to be sustainable, especially if we factor in space :)