Interesting ideas. However, It seems to me that the people who focus on population generally make the same mistake as those who focus on consumption, namely concentrate on only that. Remember: IPAT. To illustrate: even if you killed off everyone in the third would, you would still have large unregulated industries moving in to operate in those countries. The mining industry is a good example and would even be less constrained then it is now due the resultant absence of local resistance and land ownership. Overpopulation is no silver bullet. The environmental issues we have are complex and generally require different solutions in different countries.
The down side of seeing radical, politically "incorrect" ideologies as answers to the environmental problems we face is that you are marginalizing environmentalism from the mainstream (just look at how many websites exist - usually American - pointing to the fact that the first 200 laws passed by Hitler in the Third Reich were environmental. There are also famous books arguing that environmentalists are historically fascists etc. to the detriment of the movement. Further consequences of radicalism (besides alienation) include diluting more plausible solutions, confusing the electorate and hence making room for charlatans (Bjorn Lomborg), fragmenting the movement and generally adding more fodder to the talk - which is what people like Lee Raymond love since thats what the history of environmentalism is: talk.
Some things I would personally like to see: more pride in their pre-colonial history on the part of third world countries (the American Dream is a philosophical disease) and you don't need CO2 to run a civilization. If I were a millionaire I would personally start a nonprofit teaching poor people how to leave their urban squatter camps and lead a tribal life in the wild (Remember, Afrika might have a high, growing population, but it is still the least densely populated continent in the world.
Greenhouse gas reduction should be, to my mind, the most immediate goal of the developed countries, since Global Warming dwarfs all the problems we currently face. With view to precedents, progressive, socialist countries seem to be doing better here than their capitalist neighbors.
Population reduction is a long term goal. Wars are not the answer since their totalization through the industrial revolution places great strains on the environment (scorched earth, Vietman / Agent Orange, Canada's forest industry "boom" during the Napoleonic wars etc). And, how many nuclear war heads exist today? I head France has been testing theirs in the Mediterranean? The proven way to reduce population size is by allowing women to participate in the workplace and getting countries past their demographic transition.