That seems hugely wasteful of human life - we can tell to a reasonable degree of accuracy whether there are any planets large enough to be potentially life-bearing around stars further away than that (or we certainly could with a lot less investment than your plan would require) - you seem to be gambling the lives of millions of people on the off-chance that they happen to bump into a planet which happens to be sufficiently Earth-like to support us, which is hugely unlikely. Granted, getting rid of a few million people all at once would help with the overpopulation problem, but the plan is unworkable with such a disregard for any ethical or moral concerns, or for current technology (it's a stretch to get unmanned rovers to Mars successfully - trying to carry millions of people many light years away is a long way away).
That said, I don't have any real solution to propose - human beings evolved, like other animals, in an environment in which having more than 2 offspring per mating pair was necessary to ensure survival of the species, let alone to ensure their genes are passed on - we now live in an environment where this is no longer true to the same degree (the replacement rate, averaged over the entire world, can't be much more than 3 children per couple I'd say). More workable alternatives would be modelled more on the Chinese system (although that has its own cultural problems with the preference of boys over girls - less so these days than when the system was first introduced AFAIK), limiting the rate of reproduction to one sufficient to ensure replacement. However, this would require a global implementation to allay fears of one nation or group becoming stronger than another - a political nightmare.
If we're willing to stray into eugenics, Karl Pilkington (he of bald round little head and monkey obsession) made an interesting point in an episode of the Ricky Gervais podcast - why shouldn't it be easier to give birth but harder to conceive? Weird at first, and obviously unworkable, but an interesting proposition. Technology, if we wanted it to be, isn't far from the point where we could control reproduction somehow, which would allow the limitation of reproductive rates (although given human beings' tendedncy to hide in nooks and crannies, again would fail to avoid concerns about people avoiding the measures). It also has its own set of moral and ethical concerns.
It's a tricky problem this one.
Sorry, didn't mean to write so much - I've not a lot else to do at work
0
[/off-topic]
