:::::::: I also think you need to clarify the distinction between Eugenics/ devolution and Dysgenics. Because I feel that the dysgenics is getting roped into the eugenics/ devo camp. This article fails to treat dysgenics as a separate topic. I think you could do a lot to help remove the controversial side of this article if you remove the portions dealing with "criteria for selection," or rather the judgement of what are ideal traits in the human population. These questions definately fall within the Eugenics topic, and create the ambiguities in the article. The article starts well with the "Malthusian Catastrophe," section; however this shouldn't strictly be thought of as a question of "carrying capacity."  

 I think that what Dygenics is all about is the, ethical (non-racist, non genetics based) limitation of our population to ensure our economic and environmental well being in a world of finite resources. If we used this as a starting point we could do alot to eliminate the controversy surrounding eugenics, and create a more credible/ legitamate theory.