while i hear your frustration, agree in gut feeling, and though i do believe you to be more or less just venting, when thought through this is very cruel and tyrannical. i know i should not be taking this at face value and presenting an articulate argument against it is probably missing the whole point, but if we as a "world" truly want to stop the population problem the best thing that can be done is up the standard of living for people. statistics unequivocally show that when people are given the means to better there lives (education and career opportunities) and future security (able to make more money) they are far more likely ("likely" is key word as there are not absolutes as far as human behavior goes) to have fewer children. it is the most impoverished countries where there is the least security for a prosperous future that people breed like rabbits? why? because it is a genetic reaction to adverse conditions. all people (through their genes and dna) are programmed to perpetuate their blood lines (pass down down dna through the ages) and evolutionarily speaking, the strategy to best do this when in living in a state of perpetual poverty, where good medical care is unavailable, and infant mortality rates are high is by having lots of children. places where those detrimental environmental factors do not come into play "tend" (another key word) to have the lowest population growth, often in the negative range (japan being a prime example at -20%). culture and religion does play a role for many around the world as to how many children to have, but is becoming increasingly less influential, especially when conditions favor having few children that you have the ability to take exceptional care of, thus increasing the means to pass your dna along without having to have 10+ kids. a strange but apt analogy would be the difference between carpet bombing and using precision munitions to achieve your end, both get the job done, but the latter is preferred.
as for using forced sterilization merely as a means of improving the spread of "good genes" and the ending the spread of "bad genes" that would be called eugenics and another discussion entirely, perhaps even the discussion you intended to start in the first place. however, that is a truly controversial topic. when applied in it's best sense it has the potential to eliminate most diseases and make everyone beautiful, but in it's worse it becomes it becomes a means of determining who's (what races and genetic traits) get to have a future on the planet and which ones do not, and this in the wrong hands (as we saw in nazi germany) becomes a tool of genocide.
