I don't mind drawing a long bow every now and then but saying the conflicts in Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Palestinian Territory, Afghanistan are due to over population is entirely silly and beggars a response.

Following this logic, reducing the population by bombing them back in to the stone age is improving their social welfare.

Cheryl,

Strangely enough, "bombing them back into the stone age" was the Bush administration's solution to ending Saddam Hussein's reign. It was under the guise of altruism that infrastructure was obliterated and an advanced middle-eastern country was brought to its knees. It was altruism also that bestowed all the years of sanctions preceding the invasion....all apparently for their own good.

Perhaps that logic isn't too far removed from hegemonic practice after all.

I can only agree with the author. One has to be extremely pessimistic that Egypt will ever see peace and welfare for all when they lack the resources for it and the situation becomes worse every day due to their rapid population growth. In cases like this I don't see much difference between the behaviour of humans and rabbits - both destroy their supporting enviroment if their numbers are not "kept under control".

Striving for a stable population is actually a peace issue. There can be no end to conflict while resources are insufficient to support all in a minimum standard of nutrition, shelter and health. When people become hungry they have "nothing left to lose" and they "lose it" (as Gerald Celente would put it). Some of us in Australia are trying to get our nation to stabilise its population so that we can avoid the inevitable future poverty that brings and also ameliorate the difficulties that are approaching due to declining resouces such as oil. Cheryl may mock us but even she stands to benefit if we succeed.

I congratulate Michael-in-Adelaide's on his recent article on urban design and population. It was the first I have read from the anti-growth lobby.

But Michael, surely you can see that ignoring the historial formation of all of these nations (especially Palestine), the role WW1 played, intertribal wars, corruption, gun running, religion, let alone being pawns in geopolitical politics, plays a far more significant role than population.

I put it to you that the horror that some of these nations has endured is due in large part to the kind of untutored responses of third parties (call them Israel, the UK, France, et al) meddling in their domestic affairs. The population response is so banal as to be irrelevant.

michael_in_adelaide,

No doubt, population has an effect in countries such as Egypt. However, don't underestimate the consequences of IMF and World Bank involvement with corrupt elite regimes. In Egypt, for example, structural adjustments were instituted which enriched the elite while further impoverishing the general population...not surprising, therefore, that revolution eventually came about.
http://anilnetto.com/corporate-led-globalisation/imfworld-bank/egypt-followed-imfworld-bank-ideas/

Unfortunately there are too many people in our parliament on both sides of the house with a mindset like Cheryl. They have been raised with the "populate or perish" mindset, driven by big business and the Catholic Church. The examples given in the article should be a wake up call, but I am afraid the message is falling on deaf ears and as always, their solution is to shoot the messenger. Now that we are being overrun by illegal immigrants who arrive mainly by air and not boats, the situation here will ultimately get out of hand too.

David