Grasping the complex, hidden patterns in today's competitive terrain, Moore envisions a future characterized by organized chaos. As the old powers wait and wonder, vast new fortunes flourish where entrepreneurs jostle to integrate technologies and cultivate utterly new markets of unimaginable richness.

Competition between species arises when two or more species share at least some of the same limited resources. It is likely to affect all species, as well as many higher-level aspects of community and ecosystem dynamics. Interspecific competition shares many of the same features as density dependence (intraspecific competition) and evolution (competition between genotypes). In spite of this, a robust theoretical framework is not yet in place to develop a more coherent understanding of this important interaction. Despite its prominence in the ecological literature, the theory seems to have lost direction in recent decades, with many synthetic papers promoting outdated ideas, failing to use resource-based models, and having little utility in applied fields such as conservation and environmental management. Competition theory has done little to incorporate new findings regarding consumer-resource interactions in the context of larger food webs containing behaviourally or evolutionarily adapting components. Overly simple models and methods of analysis continue to be influential. Competition Theory in Ecology represents a timely opportunity to address these shortcomings and suggests a more useful approach to modelling that can provide a basis for future models that have greater predictive ability in both ecology and evolution. The book concludes with some broader observations on the lack of agreement on general principles to use in constructing mathematical models to help understand ecological systems. It argues that a more open discussion and debate of the underlying structure of ecological theory is now urgently required to move the field forward.

Criminologists have known for decades that income inequality is the best predictor of the local homicide rate, but why this is so has eluded them. There is a simple, compelling answer: most homicides are the denouements of competitive interactions between men. Relatively speaking, where desired goods are distributed inequitably and competition for those goods is severe, dangerous tactics of competition are appealing and a high homicide rate is just one of many unfortunate consequences. Killing the Competition is about this relationship between economic inequality and lethal interpersonal violence.Suggesting that economic inequality is a cause of social problems and violence elicits fierce opposition from inequality's beneficiaries. Three main arguments have been presented by those who would acquit inequality of the charges against it: that "absolute" poverty is the real problem and inequality is just an incidental correlate; that "primitive" egalitarian societies have surprisingly high homicide rates, and that inequality and homicide rates do not change in synchrony and are therefore mutually irrelevant. With detailed but accessible data analyses and thorough reviews of relevant research, Martin Daly dispels all three arguments.Killing the Competition applies basic principles of behavioural biology to explain why killers are usually men, not women, and counters the view that attitudes and values prevailing in "cultures of violence" make change impossible.