Your essay seems more than a bit much: it is an over-reading that indicates a desire to create a straw man that makes it emotionally easier for a reader to brush off an argument that is quite simple and logically consistent.

For instance,

Though you may want to pause and think about the fact that Nazi Germany ranks higher on your scale than today's America.

Hmmm. I see no reference to Nazi Germany in my piece. I am totally baffled by your reference. As I am not advocating reopening the ovens, nor book burning, nor am I advocating a fascist government, I am absolutely baffled.

You mention that you live in a country that actually hit at least 3 out of 5 of your suggestions in living memory. Then you go on to imply that these things are bad things by claiming, by inference, that Nazi Germany achieved these things. You, of course, do not list them. Again, I am baffled. Why are any of these things bad? Who can complain about a reduced population, a healthy people, healthy food, a healthy environment? Who can complain about sustainability? Are these bad goals? I am baffled. Your logic is either seriously flawed, or you are not much of an historian.

Your logic train seems to work like this: The United States wants to expand the superhighway system. Hitler developed the autobahn. Therefore, the United States is a Nazi regime. If this essay were handed in by one of my students in freshman English, after a rather hearty laugh, I would count off five points for a serious logical flaw.

You are unhappy with my constant drumbeat to reduce population now. I have analysed your essay and it seems that the operative word in my assertion that we must stop population growth now is, in fact, the word "now." You seem to think that I am advocating the killing of people willy nilly to reduce the population. Again, I search my writings and I see no such demand or suggestion. You are putting words in my mouth -- might distasteful words at that.

Here is the logical conundrum spelled out for you. Stopping anything presumes a starting point where you actually begin the stopping. So to use a crude example: Let's say you want to stop your car at a stop sign. You have five hundred feet in which to accomplish this task. You are traveling sixty miles per hour. I presume that we can all agree on the the physics of the matter. In effect, if you wait to start braking until you are abreast of the sign, you will go into the intersection and be hit by a truck. By the way, you are carrying in the car's back seat three babies and fourteen sacks of loose broken glass. Let's say you wait to brake just five feet before the stop sign. Hmmm. Probably going out into the intersection again. Let's say we start stopping at fifty feet. May make it, but the babies and broken glass are going to be a problem. So, the best time to start stopping would be sooner than later. In  the case of population control, now is inherently better than later. Can you see that? Is that so hard?

Now, you have turned my implication that many who argue invalid points continue to do so because of their "blind desire to be right" around and have pointed it back at me. Hmmm. Refer back to debunking administered earlier. Which of these things are wrong?

Reduced population is good.
A healthy environment is good.
Health care is good.
Eating healthy food is good.
A sustainable world is good.

I think these things are right. They are inherently right. They are inarguable. To argue against them is, well, not very bright.

Though I have in previous posts referred to nature's cull, I have never advocated the actual extermination of anyone. You did not just put the word "cull" into my mouth, you put an entire idea that I have never stated and do not intend to state in my mouth.

Again, when you state that die-off or overshoot is my solution to the situation, and that it is the only salvation is a hallucination on your part. I never state that I want these things. I only state that that may be the result if we continue on the more, more, more technology path. See, now follow me closely, I am against the continuation of technology at all costs because it will cause the overshoot and dieoff. You see that? Do I need to repeat? I am nowhere advocating murder on any level. I am only examining what I feel physics demands, that every action result in an opposite and equal reaction. Uh-oh, I think I went a little too deep for you. Sorry. Perhaps the intellectual company [I] seem to keep are misinforming me. Oh that you had such friends. I wouldn't have to be writing this in such a simple form. You could ask those intellectuals to explain it to you. The one sure way to seem the fool is to argue in a pathetic and ignorant fashion. That makes you...well, you know, the fool. You.

Again, with the China reference, you seem to be flaunting your foolishness. After I had advocated the reduction of population, you then bring up China and ask me how China managed its population over a generation [and] did not involve mass murder (in most people's eyes, at least), but do these results count in your 'overshoot' projections? I would ordinarily not cover this rather simple mistake in argument if my colleagues and I were passing around freshmen papers and your poor paper were amongst them. They would understand your logic flaw. You, having actually committed the flaw, do not. If you need more explanation -- it is so hard to gauge the depth of ignorance and stupidity from a single example of writing -- I will be happy to break this down into single syllable words at a later time.

Peak oil is not 'poof' and no oil tomorrow. Duh. I did not say that either. This is getting wearisome.

Most of the rest of your essay trails off into generalizations and piffle, except the part where you say that I believe them all 'dying off' is a good or necessary thing. That is a another example of poor writing skills, logic and reading ability. I have never said that. I have said that it may happen, will certainly happen if we do not back down off the technological limb, but I never, ever, said I would view that as a good thing. Your accusations are just kind of silly.

Your final straw man argument is, you think dying children is a way to make the future brighter. I don't. Tsk, tsk. Woe to us child-hating intellectuals. I hang my head in shame. Wait. Just wait a minute. Upon further review of my writings, I notice that I have never advocated child murder. Damn you straw man builder.