Wow. A Latter-day Singularitan. :)
I think it's safe to say that we are well past the limits of sustainability, given the current set of technologies we're using to provide for ourselves. In the short to mid term, oil disappears. In the next couple of centuries, coal disappears (even if we did find a way of harvesting its energy without a huge increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations). Even nuclear fuel will eventually hit a peak. Water is going to be a huge issue over the next couple of decades.
I'm sure that solutions will be found for many of these challenges. But generally speaking, each solution usually brings about its own new set of problems. The import of the potato to Ireland led to a massive population increase, as food suddenly became far cheaper and more plentiful than before. But the underlying dynamics of poverty didn't change, so when the technology supporting the growth suddenly disappeared (as it did during the potato famine), it resulted in mass starvation and emigration. In the same way, we're now completely dependent on the technology that supports us in a way that we wouldn't be had we limited our population to perhaps half a billion from the outset.
In that hypothetical, small population world, we could survive the sudden disappearance of oil relatively easily. We'd all have to be farmers for a while, but it's a much simpler problem than trying to feed thirteen times as many people with the same resources and technology. Engineering our way to ever greater populations is a risky path. I'm hoping that we'll level out around 10B
I'm half-inclined to agree with what your blog post says about population control. But I think you overestimate the population effects of differential breeding on attitudes (and apparently, intelligence). Arguably, Republicans have been outbreeding Democrats for quite a while now, but that trend has been pretty much negated by the increasing urbanization of the United States (urban dwellers tend to vote Democratic). Even if you had a hard-line group of ideological non-breeders, they would never entirely die out, because their attitudes didn't come from being descendants of a long line of childless people. Their attitudes also come from the cultural influences of the day, from the way their formative experiences wired their brains, etc.
You wrote, "We need a political party that encourages intelligent, resourceful people to have lots of children--and to educate them well." Given the massive wave of genetic manipulation that will happen over the next fifty years, will a couple of generations of incentives for selective breeding make a hint of difference? No, we should grow our supergeniuses the way God intended: in giant plexiglass cylinders filled with green glop, overseen by a cackling mad scientist.
