The idea that, in places like Somalia instability is caused by excessive population as the author puts it, "As population expands they can no longer feed themselves." is incorrect. Its Malthus restated.

Populations are self controlling. If there is not enough food, human populations cannot reproduce and sustain themselves. Populations don't "expand" during a famine. They expand when food is plentiful. During a famine there is widespread death and infertility until the population reaches a point where it can be maintained by the food available. The same applies to most other species. You cannot have a situation where a long term famine exists while the population is kept alive and reproducing healthy babies(unless food is brought in from outside). Starving people do not reproduce. There are biological reasons for this. If a population can survive and reproduce then there is 'enough' food, though it might be considered barely enough.

Shortages happen locally despite there being enough food in the world e.g. drought and crop failure in some African countries.

If there were not enough food for the worlds population then we would see an immediate drop off in population numbers. i.e. people would starve to death. The belief that we have "too many people" for our food resources is demonstrably incorrect.

Too true.
We just cannot keep increasing our population ad infinitum.
We have no right to continually keep stealing the right to exist from all the other animal species with whom we share this country and this planet.
We are no better, or worse, than they are and they have as much right as we do to live here.
We are probably worse, in fact, as we are the only animal species actively and selfishly destroying our own environment.

In my opinion one of the best books ever written about how the never-ending increase of human population inevitably created what is effectively a war on the planetary eco-systems was the book World War III by Michael Tobias, who by the way was featured on this forum a few years ago.

Agree with Atman's erudite opinion!
If we want to actually contribute to population reduction outcomes?
Then we need to see, as much as we are able, that the female demographic is also educated!
Even if that means by-passing corrupt officials and or govts, and directly funding the NGO's, who are currently providing most of the education outcomes for the least privileged!
We also need to adopt another economic model never ever dependant on population growth for economic growth or expansion.
Patent and as plain as the nose on your face pragmatism, requires that we attack and remove all elements of poverty and disadvantage, wherever we find it, and then allow the snowballing discretionary spending outcomes to grow the economy.
Moreover, if we but legislatively eliminate all forms of middle man profit taking, we will virtually halve the cost of living or doing business!
All of which should add exponentially to the real economy, while effectively reducing disadvantage.
Ditto real tax reform, [as I've explained and mathematically validated in great detail in earlier posts,[ that ends the need for compliance and or any associated costs!
The only laws that can be enforced are enforceable ones. Even China's one child legislation is routinely broken over and over again.
What is the Author actually suggesting?
That we or somebody somewhere, in say darkest and most visibly corrupt Africa, bring in involuntary sterilisation? [Don't fancy your chances!]
In any event, that would likely mean training many more doctors and nurses!
That then would mean building more schools, hospitals and universities.
The quite massively increased level of education, would then likely negate the need for involuntary sterilisation anyway? All The available stats tell us; educated empowered women, simply do not have as many children!
So, in a roundabout way, perhaps the Author's Ideas are meritorious?
Rhrosty.

Spot on, Peter.

You make one of the most fundamentally important points in Australian politics:

Population policy, that is; the achievement of a stable population, should sit absolutely at the core of both domestic politics and our foreign aid programs.

The fact that it doesn’t is really disturbing, especially given that Julia Gillard made this emphatic statement said in 2010:

< We need to stop, take a breath and develop policies for a sustainable Australia. I support a population that our environment, our water, our soil, our roads and freeways, our busses, our trains and our services can sustain. >

And given that Bob Carr, very long-time sustainable population advocate and patron of Sustainable Population Australia is now Foreign Minister.

You’ve got to wonder what it takes to get sensible population policies implemented, or indeed to make any significant moves in this direction!

Good points Peter.

Through partnership, example and assistance, Australia should help other nations to live well and plan their own future within their sustainable resource base. While welcoming our fair share of genuine refugees, we should acknowledge that overpopulation drives the resource scarcity behind most current conflicts and forced migration. By stabilising their populations through voluntary family planning and empowerment of women, nations protect their food, water and energy security, improve infant and maternal health, maximise resilience to climate change, avoid labour exploitation, and free up investment to build prosperity and develop. All people should be able to live in peace and harmony in their homeland.

_______________________
www.PopulationParty.org.au