Too much econ, not enough heart

I agree with Dryzek's concepts of ecological limits mentioned in chapter 2, that the earth can only sustain so many of one thing, including humans. For too long, humanity has used the earth as a tool and not as a home, and it is beginning to catch up to us, assuming it hasn’t already. But although I accept this idea, I have problems with how he proposes to implement a solution, if he does at all.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems that he only points out the problem, and the problem with possible solutions. I would appreciate it if he suggested a way in which humankind could begin to reverse the damage we have done, but see nothing of the sort. The closest he comes is by suggesting a global authoritarian for resource control, but it seems that the larger area a governing groups has power over, the less ecological responsibility and general welfare, or even common sense, overlap. Although we both agree that this is not the best idea, he goes on to what I feel is too far, criticizing the critics of population control in the traditional methods, religion, feminism, and Marxism. One would think that if ideologically focused groups normally not seen as extremists had a problem with an idea, it may be better to look for a more agreeable solution instead of assuming millions of people are crazy earth-killers.
His criticisms beg the question, if all the dissenter groups are wrong, and the survivalists are wrong, who's right? It’s easy to point out the problems in a concept; the hard part is coming up with a better one. I feel that with as much research and reading Dryzek seems to have done on the topic, he would be well suited to work on a solution. He mentions that dissenter groups fail to take on the limits discourse, but does he? He seems to only poke holes in the discourse without presenting an alternative—crashing the canoe before he owns the yacht.
I also seem to find contradictions in some of the ideas that he does present. I once again could be misreading this, but it seemed that in one part he mentioned that giving aid to developing countries is merely aggravating the problem of unsustainable growth, and in another mentioned that the developed countries are hoarding all the wealth and making third-world areas suffer. The only solution to redistributing the developed world’s greedy take on capitalism seems to be giving it to those with less monetary resources. There are sustainable forms of aid (Heifer International comes to mind), would this also be destructive to the survivalist’s plans? I fail to see how Dryzek can say that we should redistribute wealth while at the same time telling us we should let developing countries figure their own survival out without outside help. Or, if there is a suitable economic wealth-distribution method, why doesn’t he mention it?
Overall it seems that Dryzek is looking at population through an economist’s eye, failing to take into account (or sometimes considering and criticizing) emotional, ideological, or psychological factors. Population control is a tricky business. He mentions China’s methods as laudable and simultaneously too extreme. Many consider their methods horrific. I wonder if he sees people as souls or as numbers, and I feel that it’s a very important distinction to make.