Somehow this sounds a little bit more expensive than just using existing arable land or existing potable water

Of course. My post was meant for people, who'd claim, that "Earth can not sustain" such a big population — by listing the vast areas, where the new billions could live in comfort even if those existing parcels of arable land and sources of potable water were exhausted.

I refer you to Project Orion

The method could allow us to reach other star systems, but not practically — not within reasonable time. For that, we'd need faster-than-light travel and that is, what I had in mind.

Because that [ping times -mi] is the main downside of the Malthusian catastrophe.

It was a joke, relax...

The CRTC implicitly threatened to regulate the company by taking away its ability to rely on the new media exception if it did not cooperate with its orders.

Statists rejoice...

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

22 trillion dollars over fifty years is 440 billion dollars a year, which is quite affordable for the US.

That we were able to afford it (sort of — the figure exceeds our current national debt), means, it is indeed affordable, no big news. The points you chose to ignore were: a) the cost of it exceeded the costs of all real wars of the Republic combined; b) the "war on poverty" is a flop — despite spending so much money, we have not achieved the goals Lyndon Johnson spelled-out, when he launched the program.

BTW, the answer to James Madison is Article

Oh, sure, david_thornley from the 21 century knows the meaning of the Constitution better, than the man, who wrote it...

provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

The interpretation you are proposing here is so wide, you can drive an air-carrier through it — sideways — and affords government limitless power. For example, NSA can claim, that their eavesdropping is for "general Welfare" (and great justice!), abortions can be banned — anything.

Or are you, perhaps, confusing the generic term "welfare" with the Welfare Program — and claiming, the Constitution's authors envisioned the program for the poor 200 years before it was (finally!) implemented?

They're obviously using my HorribleNameGenerator library. I'm proud to have contributed to so many FOSS projects.

I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if the WD-40 company had created a product to make things stick together.

Tighten a loose bolt! I can always use a good wrench.
It's five dollars well spent, in my opinion.

meanwhile, existing towns are running out of water.

For the umpteenth time: desalination is a solved problem. There is no reason — other than incompetence of irrational fears of nuclear power — for any coastal city to lack water in the 21st century.

Except They are the Cavalry — according to their own page — are focusing on Cyber Safety, not privacy.

And our privacy — as far as cars are concerned anyway — has been shot for over a century already, when New York (always the Illiberal) mandated license plates in 1901.

They could not think, of course, that some day automatic license-plate readers will be archiving our driving histories. But the move — targeting "the rich", of course — was just as invasive even back then, as mandating that people carry identification at all times would be. And not just carry, but keep it visible from distance too...

Cars' new electronics may make it easier for the State to track us, but it has not been that hard before...

Why would you even want to do that?

Because I want more fellow human beings to exist. More artists, more scientists, more outright geniuses. Sure, more thieves too, but criminals affect the same share of population, whereas a single brilliant scientist may invent FTL travel or cure cancer for all...

But my wants are a moot point — the population will rise whether or not I (or you) want it, according to TFA.

What do you think filters out all of the crap we're putting into it?

Why do you hate humanity?

This individual and a Mr. Fusion, perhaps.

Mr. Fission — Mr. Fusion's older brother — would do just fine, thank you very much.

Not such a bright idea to plan on rearranging the world

I'm not planning on anything. I'm not even talking about rearranging the world — only the regions, Man may decide to populate when his technology allows.

The "rearranging" will not be any worse — nor seem any more "Star-Trekian" — than damming rivers or dredging waterways.

And you forgot all about 'ol Murphy.

He's always been with us, but we've grown in numbers anyway and are hardly starving today.

Yes but that food is already being grown

What the fook are you talking about? Israelis grow food in their own desert. The same methods can be used in Sahara and all other "hot" deserts — including the giant Sinai peninsula, which remains bare and barren since its return to Egypt.

It is possible and we know how to do it. We aren't doing it, but we can. And, should a compelling need arise, we will.

(and the water being overexploited)

There is no such thing.

I'm not sure that can be done cost effectively just yet.

It does not need to be done today. By 2100 we will be able to.

Though given that much of the non-populated near arctic is tundra on top of granite I am not sure how feasible that really is.

Is it really worse than Svalbard? People live there too. Longyearbyen may not be much today, but it is likely to expand, if more habitable areas elsewhere become too crowded.

But those places are mostly not suitable for growing crops.

False. Ample food can be grown in American Midwest as it is.

And the hot deserts can also be turned around very nicely. Earth can easily grow a lot more food than it does. It would be nice to waste less of it too...

And we can — with nuclear or fusion reactors...

Quantity of people is not a problem — not now, not in 2100. Quality, on the other hand, has always been a problem...

Arable land, potable water, things like that.

Land is plentiful, water is, indeed, needed to make it arable, but desalination is a solved problem — you just need electricity. And we can provide that even today in abundance with fission (nuclear plants) and will certainly be able to have it even better in the future with fusion.

It starts to sound a lot like living off-Earth at that point, no?

All of the problems you listed are several orders of (decimal) magnitude worse on other bodies of the Solar System. And the problem of inter-star travel has not been solved yet even in theory — nor even is it obvious, the solution will ever be found.

We will, probably, colonize Mars some day, but the South Pole is much more comfortable for humans than any spot of the Red Planet. And the ping-times are much shorter...