In Defense of Steady-State Economics

Mill makes strong points in his support of a steady-state type of economy. He focuses on two main components of our current societies that must be addressed and changed in order to reach a favorable state of living for all (humans and environment). Both population and consumption should be controlled and reduced.
In realizing our current condition with overcrowding, struggle for employment, depletion of natural resources, and extremities between classes, Mill states that a steady-state would be an improvement. Being in a more stagnant system does not mean there will not be continued increase in spiritual, educational, technological, and scientific fields. And it could increase these parts of culture and social progress as a whole.
Mill offers a few options for steps to reaching a steady-state. He mentions stricter population control (and distribution) and legislation that leads to restraints on sum/acquisition of fortune one may have-leading to better paid and overall wealthier population of workers.
I feel, however, more information is necessary in this excerpt concerning the process of reaching a steady-state economy from our current status. How exactly is population going to be controlled so that it reaches a state closer to the birth rate mirroring the death rate? There should also be more mentioned about the policies or steps for controlling our consumption (of energy and materials). There should be a focus on planning out and setting aside enough land and water so that ecological processes may continue with little/less disturbance to maintain a balance between human presence and natural ecosystems and species. Increased regulations on rates and amount of resource use is also necessary in addition to higher/stricter standards for emission (limits) and toxicity (severance taxes, quotas for extraction...).
Finally, a statement Mill makes on page 601 should be treated more as a matter of opinion rather than fact, and may not be the best support for the notion that steady-state will work. Mill claims, "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back, by the efforts of others to push themselves forward", yet where is the evidence that this is fact? For throughout history, I personally only am familiar with constant states of competition, of bettering oneself or one's clan/group. Biologically, I feel that his statement lacks support, for every species strives to continually evolve to a more "fit" state. Such a Utopian world he describes doesn't appear to have ever existed (or consequently prove it works/is feasible) and seems will be an extremely difficult status to attain based off of (evolutionary) history.