I don't have any problem with that. However, it will be very difficult and very expensive. I don't see it happening in time to relieve the pressures of increasing population.
Given the rate that nanotechnology and similar lines of tech are developing, I don't think space colonization is
too far in the future. Vast regions of the world are uninhabited, so currently the population problem is not one of space but of resources (e.g., food). This is where technology like genetic engineering comes into play.
Re:
I would want to see this done gradually, by reducing birth rates, rather than with a program of mass slaughter.
But given that the human species is not unified under one government, how are we going to regulate the population in places where we are not in control (whoever "we" might be)? Actually, I think the biggest population problems do stem from those areas of the world in which we have but little control.
Xongsmith mounts a more formidable case for birth rate reduction:
Problem is that population increases GEOMETRICALLY. Even the exploration and colonization of space is basically a change from close to a 2-dimensional world (the surface of the earth) to a 3-dimensional world (surfaces of terraformed planets and lots and lots of space station artificial worlds).
In light of this consideration, I think it is necessary to take measures to gradually reduce the exponential growth of the human population.
The argument for colonizing space is so that an earth-destroying asteroid won't wipe us out.
That has never been my main interest in colonizing space. The conquest of space opens up a whole new world (a whole new space) of opportunity for advancement. Surely, the interest in space colonization isn't merely because of the threat of an earth-destroying asteroid?