During the Roman empire, Romans had approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today’s life expectancy.
***
It used to be that population size was controlled by wars and disease – nature’s servo-mechanism – but humanity has more or less conquered that.
Let’s do a thought experiment- if the birth rate remained constant at the replacement rate of 2 births per woman – but people lived longer due to better treatment of disease and avoidance of conflict, in due time you’ll have a logarithmic population explosion.
This situation is akin to an algal bloom – an algal bloom or marine bloom or water bloom is a rapid increase in the population of algae in an aquatic system.
The recipe for blooms is abundant sunlight, nutrients and the right water conditions. Phytoplankton blooms are a natural occurrence in spring. Blooms can also occur in summer and fall when there is an increase in nutrients from natural sources such as wind-driven mixing of surface waters with deeper waters, or human sources, such as wastewater treatment plants. As phytoplankton use up the nutrients in the surface waters, their growth slows and cells eventually die. Dying blooms can be an environmental concern because as the cells sink and decay, bacteria decompose the organic material, which in turn strips oxygen from the water. This microbial oxygen demand at times leads to very low oxygen conditions in the bottom waters.
******
Nature evolves new pathogens – while humans are also preempting nature through technology. In the process we live longer – and introduce new drug-resistant pathogens. 
As we live longer from 25 years to 75 years (although Africa today has avg life expectancy of 35 y.O) – where a piece of earth is occupied by one individual for only 25 years – the increased life expectancy means that the same piece of land will now be occupied by more people – three times longer – even though people are giving birth at the same rate or even reduced rates – at the ideal replacement level of 2 births per woman.
Picture a restaurant. Customer come to the restaurant at the rate of two persons per table per hour. It used to be that guests will come in, order food, eat it, and are out of there in half an hour. Then the restaurant provides more options and entertainment. People still come in at the same rate – but are staying longer. Normally, as the guest leaves, the table is freed up for new guests. But because the guests now stay longer, even if the rate of new orders is constant as before – there will be a bottleneck – because the outflow is slower than the inflow. People are taking more time to order, are eating the food slower, and taking more time to finish. Guess what happens to those who are still waiting for their turn?
What this implies is there’s more to poverty than overpopulation.
It also implies that the assertion of the reproduction rate as a culprit for overpopulation is doubtful. Or that overpopulation as the cause of poverty is more doubtful.
Some people describe poverty as a lack of essential items – such as food, clothing, water, and shelter – needed for proper living. At the UN’s world summit on social development, the ‘Copenhagen declaration’ described poverty as “…a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.” when people are unable to eat, go to school, or have any access to health care, then they can be considered to be in poverty, regardless of their income. To measure poverty in any statistical way, however, more rigid definitions must be used.
Let’s look at hard data and see if the RH bill’s argument that overpopulation causes poverty is spot on.
Indonesia
* has a population of 240 million
* Land Area: 1,811,569 sq km
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $4,300 (2010 est.)
Philippines
* has 90 million population-
* land area: 298,170 sq km
* GDP per capita – $3,500 (2010 est.)
Japan
* 120 million population;
* land area – 364,485 sq km -
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $34,200 (2010 est.)
North Korea
* has 24.5 million population;
* land area – 120,538 sq km -
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $1,800 (2010 est.)
The argument that overpopulation is a cause of poverty is negated because for such a principle to hold true then Japan, too should have the same GDP per capita as the Philippines and Indonesia. Obviously – the numbers don’t add up.
There is so much wealth in the world today that can provide food, clothing, water, and shelter – however access to it such wealth or the lack of it is a function of economic policy – regardless of whether you have no child, one child, or five children. In an environment where economic policy is skewed in favor of vested interests – you can have small family sizes – and people with very low purchasing power. For example, North Korea has 1.9 births per woman and GDP per capita of $1,800. If one were to buy the argument that lesser population size equals prosperity, North Korea should be roaring over the Philippines GDP per capita income right now. Obviously that’s not the case.
For short – the RH bill’s attempt to connect overpopulation with poverty is quite a stretch. The facts show that the position is not defensible. Therefore am not buying the assertion that overpopulation causes poverty.
***
Carrying capacity, however, is another matter.
Going back to our analogy of the restaurant, it can be said that as the the restaurant is becoming packed – and more people are waiting – it’s carrying capacity is being stretched. The restaurant’s options are
* Increase capacity – provide more tables and chairs to squeeze in more customers; optimize processes to ensure customers are served in clock work fashion;
* Increase throughput outflow – change the offerings in order to speed up the outflow;
* Reduce inflow – increase the price of admission; and,
* Recommend other restaurants.
Have we looked at all our options or are we just looking at the options which have the highest number of proponents – but not necessarily the best option.
Have we looked at technologies that change the carrying capacity – just like when carrying capacity changed as we went from steam, to coal, to nukes, to fossils, to renewables – and to a blend of all these technologies.
Like an algal bloom, the human population bloom can affect the environment in temporary or long-term ways. The environment can change such that it is no longer habitable for humans. That is disastrous for the human species. But bacteria which live in hostile environments will continue to exist and life goes on in the planet – albeit without humans. Humanity can reach the height of prosperity – and then kaboom – have an extinction level event due to our shortsightedness as a species.
Will that mean the earth will go extinct too? I doubt very much. Unless the nukes go off or an asteroid hits the earth to blow it up – the planet goes on. After all, humanity is but a speck of dust in the billions of years that took to form terra firma.
Whether integrated resource management of our external environment and our population is best addressed by the market or government is a raging battle as the wisdom of bigger government spending and its ability to deliver cost-effective results is put under the microscope.
This enough I know – when it comes to public finances, I don’t trust the Philippine government. I’d rather spend my money and give it direct to the beneficiary instead of giving my money to government who in turn will disburse it “for the greater good”.
Oh by the way, the Road User’s Tax has just been used by Congress to give itself a raise and more perks.
New results from the same old approaches? – good ole Albert Einstein had a word for that.
Related Reads:
http://antipinoy.com/population-growth-birth-rate-death-rate-life-expectancy-of-filipinos-and-the-rh-bill/
http://antipinoy.com/revisiting-the-rh-bill-a-trojan-horse-for-increased-wasteful-public-spending/
http://badmannersgunclub.com/2011/02/misplaced-priorities/#more-1022
http://badmannersgunclub.com/2011/02/dissecting-the-rh-bill/
http://getrealphilippines.blogspot.com/2011/02/have-advocates-of-filipino-reproductive.html
About the Author
47 Comments on “Poverty is not caused by overpopulation”
But in the case of the Philippines, our land area can no longer produce enough that we need to import…
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am
And it does not help that we have policies that restrict imports – thereby causing prices to rise artificially.
[Reply]
kusinero Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 1:37 am
I disagree. We still have lots of land but they are left either unused, underused or misused. Take some time and look at Google maps, switch to satellite mode and you will see the vastness of land in the Philippines. What is lacking is a comprehensive land utilization plan. That’s why you get subdivisions being build on farmlands, squatters building their houses on marshes, etc. These land areas are better off being used for other purposes that can harness it’s productivity fully but since the government does not have guidelines, then we are where we are right now.
[Reply]
Helios Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 6:49 am
unfortunately it is not as simple as that. the lands of the Philippines are not all suitable for cultivating crops. some crops are even soil eroding which means it is not good for the overall ecological balance. the terrain is actually varied, we also have marshes which in theory cannot be cultivated, for draining it will have repercussions on the surrounding cultivated lands. simply stating the land area may be misleading.
as for this article, though overpopulation does not necessarily mean the country will be poor, it certainly exacerbates the resource problem of this country. letting the population balloon uncontrollably would certainly mean economic disaster
[Reply]
Overpopulation may not cause poverty indeed, but can aggravate it to a great degree. Thus, population control remains a valid issue which needs it own solutions.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
That is true – there are many solutions = question is which one has proven to be more effective.
Yes, the mother needs access to maternal care.
A mother who has a good paying job will have access to maternal care.
A mother without a job will not have access to maternal care.
Was the lack of access to maternal care brought about by the number of children – or was it the fact that she didn’t have a job that allows her to pay for maternal care.
[Reply]
Simple: the fact that we need to resort to importing food already means that the Philippines is over-populated. Failing that, indeed, prices rise. You get poverty. Dependence is the root of poverty because one is not IN CONTROL of one’s means to live.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
The food issue is indeed contentious – considering the acreage of land planted to banana, rubber, and palm oil – there is land available for production of food. and yes – it is being used for food – but, not for Filipinos.
[Reply]
benign0 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Then there are two resource contention issues at work here:
(1) Land for space to live; and;
(2) Land for producing food.
Both are in short supply for the purposes of supporting the population. This means that population is too big relative to available resources required to “carry” this population.
For me that is the definition of “over-population”. It’s not about the absolute numbers of people — it’s about the numbers of people relative to the availability of ESSENTIAL resources required to support said population.
And using that definition, it is quite clear that the Philippines is OVER-POPULATED and IMPOVERISHED as a result of said over-population.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Land for producing food:
Contention: Land resource is not enough to support population.
The facts:
Land use: arable land: 19%
permanent crops: 16.67%
other: 64.33% (2005)
Definition:
This entry contains the percentage shares of total land area for three different types of land use:
arable land – land cultivated for crops like wheat, maize, and rice that are replanted after each harvest;
permanent crops – land cultivated for crops like citrus, coffee, and rubber that are not replanted after each harvest; includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, but excludes land under trees grown for wood or timber;
other – any land not arable or under permanent crops; includes permanent meadows and pastures, forests and woodlands, built-on areas, roads, barren land, etc.
Source: CIA World Factbook – Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of December 30, 2010
*** Given the breakdown – and the ownership of few lands in a few hands – the resources made available to the population is small – BUT there are enough resources which are not being made available.
***
Same goes for supply of land available for living – there are a few who can afford humungous lot sizes – while a whole lot have to deal with the few that’s made available to them.
***
going further –
– the graph shows that a lot of arable area was not available in 1968 – and more land was actually made available from 1968 onwards -whereas the RH KPIs were going down.
***
And considering that Japan has more population than the Philippines, is richer than the Philippines, has a program – can be said to be overpopulated – but why is it not impoverished?
A recent book on by Frances McCall Rosenbluth, ed., The Political Economy of Japan’s Low Fertility. Stanford University Press, 2006, 240 pp. studied the political economy of Japan’s low fertility rate – despite being more populous than the Philippines.
The book’s original contribution to the debate on Japan’s low fertility is its focus on the country’s inhospitable labour market, which forces women to choose between motherhood and career. The book convincingly shows that, while better maternity leaves and available, affordable childcare are essential, they are not sufficient to promote an acceptable level of work-family balance for Japanese women. The crux of the problem lies in Japan’s firm-centered employment system that offers life-long employment in exchange for employees’ investment in firm-specific skills and knowledge. In this type of labour market, employers cannot afford career interruptions (such as maternity leaves) or any diminution of their employees’ total devotion to work. Thus, the imperative of raising young children is irreconcilable with firms’ structure, ethics, and work culture. Not surprisingly, firms prefer to not hire women or to relegate them to subaltern positions, despite a legal framework that promotes gender equality in the workplace. The book also stresses how Japan’s work culture ignores the imperatives of childrearing for men, who are expected to show complete loyalty to their employers, regardless of families or personal lives. The responsibilities of childrearing thus disproportionately fall upon women, who, in addition, must face intense social pressures to raise competitive, “smart” children in order to enhance their offspring’s future value in the job market.
For short – the economic activity forced Japanese women to have lower fertility rates – far more than any government sponsored population control program. If anything, Japan is currently facing a fertility decline – and its rate of replacement of 1.67 is alarming the Japanese government – which has recently encouraged Japanese to have more children.
[Reply]
Phiel Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Well, now the Japanese population is increasing with less intelligent children whose single parent (female) is under 18 years of age. Recently an 18 year old student was arrested for cheating at a university entrance exam.
Just wanted to say that.
Back to the Philippines, I think people cramming into a city makes the world seem overpopulated than it really is.
If you go to the countryside, there’s a lot of land lying waste because most of its owners chose to live in the slums in the city instead of the beautiful and bountiful nature. If they have that much land there in the countryside, they should just live day to day, not earning money but at least being able to feed themselves and learning more about nature than damaging their health, moral ethics, or mental stability in the city.
And anyway, aren’t they practically doing the same thing? It’s not like they can afford to buy expensive devices such as an ipad or ipod, or a laptop; it’s not like they can have a decent job instead of a jeepney driver or send their kids to a good school. Sometimes sticking to it pays off a lot more than fighting for a dream that can never be.
It’s tragic.
benign0 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Japan is not impoverished despite its large population because it has secured its access to essential resources. When I say it has secured its access to these, I mean: (1) it has established a relatively higher degree of control over suppliers of these resources and (2) developed an efficient means to distribute these once acquired.
Note that in Japan’s case (a nation physically poor in land and natural resources), its trading partners scramble over one another to assure it a steady supply of the commodities they export. That’s because Japan is seen to be a premium trading partner — one that exporters cannot afford to lose. So countries like Malaysia and the Philippines would gladly denude their forests and enslave their workforces to export timber and other raw low-added-value commodities to Japan.
Japan for its part possesses the capital to lock in its suppliers. This is something China is doing as well in its exploration and wheeling-and-dealing expeditions to Africa and South America. These countries don’t just buy their stuff from foreign countries, they actually go out there and buy the actual production facilities in those countries so that they actually own a big chunk of the supply chain that delivers those essential commodities to their shores.
We need a more complete picture of what it means to be OVER-POPULATED and how this relates to our IMPOVERISHMENT. The Philippines WILL remain overpopulated if it continuously FAILS to provide for the needs of its enormous population. Japan has a larger population in absolute physical terms but they are clearly NOT “over-populated” because their own enormous numbers do NOT present a hindrance to their aspirations.
In the same respect, a person who owns a Toyota Corolla that he cannot afford is over-committed financially. But a person who owns a Mercedes Benz that he can afford cannot be considered to be over-commited (despite the Merc being a more costly resource than the Corolla).
[Reply]
GabbyD Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
you are confused about causation. “Japan is not impoverished despite its large population because it has secured its access to essential resources.”
japan can secure access because its not impoverished. not the other way around.
but whatever…
benign0 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Nah. That’s typical loser mentality at work, GabbyD. It raises a chicken-and-egg question of where that ability to secure resources originated to begin with (a question I tackle in my usual brillant form here).
Happy reading!
BongV Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
It’s gonna get worse – until the Philippines figures out the cause of its overpopulation.
***
As recently as two or three generations ago, mortality rates in the United States were as high as they are now in most third world countries. Opportunities for our grandmothers to work outside the home were limited. And ours was largely an agrarian society in which every family member was needed to work on the farm. Coauthor Frances Lappé’s own grandmother, for example, gave birth to nine children, raised them alone on a small farm, and saw only six survive to adulthood. Her story would not be unusual in a still fast-growing third world country today.
Faced with scarcity, poor families needed many children to help with work on the farm, and because of high infant-mortality rates, they needed many more pregnancies and births to achieve the necessary family size.
In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children’s labor. If we contrast Lappé’s grandmother’s story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.
The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)22
Using our own country’s experience to understand rapid population growth in the third world, where poverty is more extreme and widespread, we can now extend our hypothesis concerning the link between hunger and high fertility rates: both persist where societies deny security and opportunity to the majority of their citizens-where infant-mortality rates are high and adequate land, jobs, education, health care, and old-age security are beyond the reach of most people, and where there are few opportunities for women to work outside the home.
Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people’s defensive reaction against enforced poverty. For those living at the margin of survival, children provide labor to augment meager family income. In Bangladesh, one study showed that even by the age of six a boy provides labor and/or income for the family. By the age of twelve, at the latest, he contributes more than he consumes.23 As recently as two or three generations ago, mortality rates in the United States were as high as they are now in most third world countries. Opportunities for our grandmothers to work outside the home were limited. And ours was largely an agrarian society in which every family member was needed to work on the farm. Coauthor Frances Lappé’s own grandmother, for example, gave birth to nine children, raised them alone on a small farm, and saw only six survive to adulthood. Her story would not be unusual in a still fast-growing third world country today.
Faced with scarcity, poor families needed many children to help with work on the farm, and because of high infant-mortality rates, they needed many more pregnancies and births to achieve the necessary family size.
In the United States, the move to two-children families took place only after a society-wide transition that lowered infant death rates, opened opportunities to women outside the home, and transformed ours into an industrial rather than agrarian economy, so that families no longer relied on their children’s labor. If we contrast Lappé’s grandmother’s story to a latter-day urban middle-class family, we can see that children who were once a source of needed labor are now a source of major costs, including tuition, an extra room in the house, the latest model basketball shoes, and forgone earnings for every year that a professional mom stays home with the kids.
The United States advanced through the falling-birth-rate phase of the demographic transition in response to these societal changes, well before the advent of sophisticated contraceptive technologies, even while the government remained actively hostile to birth control. (As late as 1965, selling contraceptives was still illegal in some states.)22
Using our own country’s experience to understand rapid population growth in the third world, where poverty is more extreme and widespread, we can now extend our hypothesis concerning the link between hunger and high fertility rates: both persist where societies deny security and opportunity to the majority of their citizens-where infant-mortality rates are high and adequate land, jobs, education, health care, and old-age security are beyond the reach of most people, and where there are few opportunities for women to work outside the home.
Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people’s defensive reaction against enforced poverty. For those living at the margin of survival, children provide labor to augment meager family income. In Bangladesh, one study showed that even by the age of six a boy provides labor and/or income for the family. By the age of twelve, at the latest, he contributes more than he consumes.23
http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past
****
Same thing going on in Bangladesh and the Philippines – “when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people’s defensive reaction against enforced poverty”
benign0 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
It’s a survival strategy that worked in the past but is no longer effective for the future.
It’s no different from our ingrained insatiable craving for fat, salt, and sugar. That craving evolved over millions of years of scarcity of those three nutrients. But today, they are abundant in most societies. And yet those cravings persist. They are legacies that no longer serve us well.
BongV Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:57 am
It also shows that the Philippines is still very much an agrarian society which relies on big family units. In contrast, the economies which have moved on from feudal to liberal capitalism – have made the adjustments.
GabbyD Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
oh so, over population, securing food, has nothing to do with it pala! check out your link — over pop has nothing to do with what u wrote there!
hay, ano ba tlga kuya?
benign0 Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
If you have to ask even after reading my brilliant work, that means you won’t get the answer even if it is served to you on a silver platter.
Tough luck.
KG Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
We are still an agrarian society relying on big family inputs but…….
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20110117-314904/Pangilinan-sees-food-crisis-as-farmers-getting-fewer
Pangilinan sees food crisis as farmers getting fewer ……..
“MANILA, Philippines—Filipino farmers are growing old and the young people are not replacing them in the fields.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan, chair of the Senate committee on agriculture and food, said this was an “unseen crisis” in the industry which could affect the country’s food supply in the next few years.
The Philippines has about 4.3 million farmers, tilling an average of 2.5 hectares of land each, Pangilinan said in a media briefing.
Their average age is 57, much too old to till the fields. “This is reaching crisis level. If we don’t correct this in three years, we will have a problem getting our output,” he said.
Pangilinan said the demographics indicated that younger Filipinos were not enticed to enter in the agricultural sector. For them, farming is not a way out to poverty, he said.
“Their grandfathers were poor, their fathers were poor,” he said.
“Why don’t they come in? Because they don’t find it viable,” he added.”
=====
The farmers can no longer rely on big family inputs.
Citing your illustration between Japan and Philippines, I agree with you that our 95 million population is not the cause of country’s poverty. Poverty in our country is caused by those people running the government, who mismanage our resources by squandering people’s money for their own good. There are also economic provisions in the Constitution that need to be changed to improve our economic condition. But I also agree with ChinoF that with our present economic condition, overpopulation can aggravate poverty to a great degree. To solve the problem of poverty, political and economic reforms must be prioritized.
[Reply]
I have one short response to his very long blog. Economists are divided on what really causes poverty. Some economists argue that its rapid population growth while others think its government corruption. But do we really have to argue about which one is which and which one is the ultimate cause? We all know, through simple logic, that when a country has a growing percentage of unskilled workers, it will lag tremendously behind nations with relatively more skilled workers. This is largely because workers who are skilled are more productive; thus can produce more goods and services. I mean, I can further expound on this to prove my point, but I think most of the people here already get the main idea of what I’m trying to say. So I’m not going to do that to keep this short and simple.
[Reply]
benign0 Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Mine is even shorter.
I base it on my elegantly simple definition of poverty:
Poverty as a habitual entering into commitments one is inherently unable to honour.
A nation increasing its population effectively enters into a commitment to support the needs of this population. The Philippines has so far FAILED to honour that commitment. Therefore, the Philippines is a poor country as a result of said increase in its population.
I elaborate further on this simple concept here.
It’s simple, really™.
[Reply]
kusinero Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 2:11 am
I agree. In short, poverty is caused by making the wrong choices. Or even shorter, poverty is caused by kabobohan
[Reply]
Artemio Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
In other words, a country that is said to be overpopulated is a country that lacks the ability to “produce” commensurate to the size of its population–The Philippines is said to be overpopulated since it is unproductive or seriously underproductive. Unproductivity is the problem really; “overpopulation” is simply the consequence.
Consumerist society nga lang kasi ang Pilipinas.
The society also elected a President that simply reflects the character of its masses–visionless, lazy, unproductive, idle, wasteful, and incompetent (and yet Mr Jim Paredes seems unable to realize what electing and rooting for Noynoy tell us about ourselves).
[Reply]
Carlo Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“The Philippines is said to be overpopulated since it is unproductive or seriously underproductive. Unproductivity is the problem really; “overpopulation” is simply the consequence.” This was very well said, and I completely agree.
[Reply]
great article bongV! this and other articles here on the matter really prove that most people are like lemmings and just go with the tide or what’s MOSTLY being said in the traditional media. while its true that overpopulation can aggravate poverty, it is certainly not the ONLY factor as proven by the data you presented here. while the gov’t keeps on harping about the non-passage of the rh bill as the scourge in our country’s quest for economic progress, the question is, what have they done by means of policy in alleviating the plight of the poor while they await resolution on the issue? sometimes i think this is just their excuse for their inability to make good their campaign promises. At the end of BS aquino’s term, if we are still in this craphole, or maybe even worse than now, perhaps abigail valte would use this. ”Yeah, our country is still poor, but we can’t blame the president. rh bill was not passed.”
if rh bill was passed, will our country be really better? from what i heard, free condoms are already being distributed in health centers. so i guess we really don’t need a law (this is of course for those who simplify the rh bill as distributing free contraceptives only). the problem is, does mr. construction worker or mr. taho vendor, or their partners, ever bother to get them? they’re too tired from working too hard to pay for rice and the escalating cost of almost every basic necessity for their family. ”at the end of the day”, all they want is to assert their manhood to make them feel better about themselves. if wifey gets preggy, at least he has bragging rights, he probably tells himself. that is why men like erap, father and son revilla, robin padilla and the like are revered and not reviled. mindsets must change.
as for food shortage, agriculture land is shrinking because we want more villages, more golf courses and more resorts. i agree with what ilda commented in her article, develop the province so that people there need not go to the big cities that is so congested now.
so people really need to change their way of thinking, and perhaps, constitutional change that will bring about economic reforms so that mr. and mrs. poor will be gainfully employed and will be too preoccupied to sleep early so they can go to work the next day.
more power to ap!
[Reply]
Dark Passenger Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Robin Padilla is actually endorsing condoms. I saw the commercial. Hopefully the masses that revere him will follow suit, not just for population reasons but also for health reasons, to help prevent the spread of STDs and such. Even the pope is okay with condom use. Who better than the pope and Robin Padilla to endorse condom use to largely Catholic and macho Filipino masses?
[Reply]
ici Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 1:00 am
good for robin…and i know the pope has no problem with the use of condoms. so there really is no conflict. what is important is awareness and teaching responsible parenthood….my point is, let’s not focus much on rh bill since it is still being debated on, but on what else we can do to give people jobs so they won’t be idle. of course we know what happens to idle minds… :p for starters, why can’t local gov’ts make it conducive for small businesses to start? in this country, a big slice of one’s capital is poured into securing permits and registrations and other red tape. it’s very discouraging for entrepreneurs.
[Reply]
I must agree with some of your statements but not all. Yes, poverty is not caused by overpopulation, but it’s one of the major causes of overpopulation. The root cause, in my opinion, is ignorance, ignorance of the people as well as the government. Ignorance that there is a problem and we don’t do anything about it. We just delay it until it became so big and then we do something about it.
In your article, you gave an example “Phytoplankton” compared to a human. So you’re comparing a plant from a human right?
The thing is a plant can produce its own food, humans don’t. We need other organisms as food. It’s basic science. Plants produce and humans consume. So how is it valid to compare a consumer from a producer? It makes no sense. The real effect of overpopulation can be compared to a virus because like us, it consumes. An
HIV virus, for example, replicates itself by altering our DNA in the cells thus destroying that cell giving birth to two HIV viruses. It continues to replicates itself until such a time, the host dies because the virus was so overpopulated and it already consumed all the host’s cells.
It’s the same in the real thing. We humans consume a lot of resources here on earth. If we have a lot of people here that means we need a lot of resources just to satisfy our hunger, but considering the human psychological aspects, some humans are greedy consuming more than they need.
Given your example in your “restaurant scenario” :
“Picture a restaurant. Customer come to the restaurant at the rate of two persons per table per hour. It used to be that guests will come in, order food, eat it, and are out of there in half an hour. Then the restaurant provides more options and entertainment. People still come in at the same rate – but are staying longer. Normally, as the guest leaves, the table is freed up for new guests. But because the guests now stay longer, even if the rate of new orders is constant as before – there will be a bottleneck – because the outflow is slower than the inflow.
People are taking more time to order, are eating the food slower, and taking more time to finish. Guess what happens to those who are still waiting for their turn?”
This is misleading because it’s not realistic. People do not stay longer because of the entertainment that rarely happens. People stay longer because of the restaurant’s location to the person’s destination and, if you consider the location like the Philippines, the prices of the food.
If a restaurant is located so far from my home or my work, why would I even bother going there? It’ll only consume gas to my car and I’ll be tired of driving long distances even if that restaurant has a 3D movie cinema or has a roller coaster ride. I’d rather walk a few steps from the nearest sari-sari store and buy a pack of “boy bawang” and a small softdrink. If the prices are high, why would I buy there if I can buy the same thing at a different store at a cheap price?
Today’s crisis, spending is unwise. I want to survive so I’ll save money because I don’t know what will happen tomorrow.
The point I’m getting here is the “restaurant scenario” of yours cannot be compared to the real world human application of overpopulation. Business is business, it has rules of its own. Nature’s rules cannot be compared to business rules.
You also compared other Asian countries to ours saying,
“The argument that overpopulation is a cause of poverty is negated because for such a principle to hold true then Japan, too should have the same GDP per capita as the Philippines and Indonesia. Obviously – the numbers don’t add up.”
Ok have you seen our map? Our land is separated from different islands. Japan is one big island. So that means their mode of transportation is easy, we don’t. So that means our people cannot migrate from provinces easily because of the lack of finances so they stay from where they are located.
That also poses another threat to the business sector because it cannot easily transport food products from other islands without paying large sums of money. Meaning food is scarce if we have a lot of people here. It will take days even months for food to come because we have poor infrastructure on roads. Japan has no problem on that that’s why their population is high because food is easily available.
In North Korea, yes their GDP is lower but their education is free, ours is not. We have to pay our own education but North Korea’s citizens don’t even pay a dime on learning. That slashes their expenses to a lot of money, so it’s no problem if their population grows.
Sheesh! I’d rather be smart than rich than be rich and incredibly stupid.
Anyway, my point is the reason why other countries like Japan is prosperous than ours it’s because we have different lands, culture, psychology, infrastructures, and mentality than they are. You cannot compare other small countries that are more populated than ours because we have a different setting in our location.
The reason why there is overpopulation is pretty obvious, majority of that is because of poverty. Poor people are misinformed about a lot of things that includes raising a family. And why does the government have to know the cause of overpopulation? The word “overpopulation” explains itself. It means too many people so the source are the “people.” How hard is that? Slowdown the “source” and you slowly solve overpopulation. Simple Darwinian Law.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Plants appear to produce their own food – but they also need external inputs – sunlight, CO2 among others.
In like manner, to produce food – humans also need external inputs – land, water.
The difference is – plants have equal access to the sun and CO2.
Humans on the other hand have to deal with economic systems – that affect access to inputs.
****
As to people staying longer in the restaurant due to entertainment.
Do you know how many Filipinos buy just one beer and enter the beer garden and watch boxing all night long – at the price of one beer. Meanwhile, people who do have money to spend for cases of beer have to stand and wait till the freeloader finishes. If it were not a Manny Pacquiao fight, will they go to said restaurant?
***
The bone of contention is how to “slow down” the population growth. Thus far, scientific studies on the political economy of China, US, and Japan vis-a-vis fertility rates are clear – economic prosperity lowers the population growth more effectively than population control programs.
Given therefore the entire array of solution presented before the Filipino people – Consti Reform is the obvious superior solution to keeping fertility in check, generate jobs, make health care more affordable, and keep people from being impoverished.
Now given that we have 24 hours in a day – or in this case 5 years left in Aquino’s term – The solution which makes more sense to pursue FIRST – given all the knowledge available at our disposal now – and the benefits that can be derived from such an undertaking – I will go for broke and go for Constitutional Reform FIRST.
I also raised the issue of corruption in the government procurement and distribution aspect and provided a better market-driven alternative consisting of a calibrated set of incentives and tax breaks. Which on the overall scheme of things – are already built-in into the Consti Reform 3 point agenda.
So why settle for an RH Bill which is grossly flawed – when you can have a constitution reform agenda that addresses the issues of access to health care (including reproductive health) for everyone – among others.
Thus to me, I prefer the Consti Reform 3-point agenda advocacy which is far intellectually robust empirically and on solid ground.
[Reply]
Andrew Tuazon Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 1:30 am
I found before a release by NSO regarding “prosperity lowers population growth”, their survey showed that educated and working females have lower average number of children (2-3) compared to uneducated women (4-6). It shows the trend that the more educated a person becomes, the lower they choose their family size to be. A bigger push for better education addresses alot of the issues in our country, but when the teacher’s licensing exam has passing rates of below 20%, it also shows that we dont just need to focus more on the public primary and secondary education but also the education of the teachers themselves. UP diliman can only produce around 90 teachers a year, Philippine Normal University at around 1000, but there are 80k yearly board exam takers for the teacher board exam with the majority failing.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 6:57 am
Andrew – that’s the point that’s whoozing above people’s head – they’d rather have the fish.
My beef with your restaurant analogy are the following assumptions:
1) The restaurant will never run out of food and it can keep taking orders forever. It is possible that consumption will outstrip the restaurant’s incoming food supply. Carrying capacity is the limited eating area, the food/drink supply of the restaurant (agricultural production/food importation), sanitation efficiency of the restaurant, etc.
2) The restaurant crew will never get tired.The customer’s accessibility to food and other services were never in question.
3) There is no question that poverty is a complex problem and overpopulation is not the only idea associated with it.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Thanks for taking note of the restaurant metaphor.
There are also other assumption that have yet to be explored:
* The consumption pattern of customers – do they eat a lot or not?
* Do their eating habits match the menu?
So yes, there are lots of considerations – and – reducing the number of customers in order to comply with the restaurant’s carrying capacity without looking at the other factors – will ensure the restaurant’s stocks remain – but will also affect the restaurant’s revenue.
In which case the restaurateur can make pricing changes – and let the customers decide for themselves whether they still wanna eat in the same restaurant, or eat the same amount of food, try another less pricy menu – but you’ll never know unless you let them in in the first place.
[Reply]
Resources can be reproduced, but are not bottomless. Even the slogan, “there’s enough for everybody,” is something I take with a grain of salt, since people seem to think that this applies to even depletable resources (like oil), or some might think that they don’t need to do anything to make it true. Food production is still something that needs attention to, since it seems to be neglected today, and I see this in the current woes about rice in the Philippines. To make sure that there’s “enough for everybody” really needs a lot of work to sustain, and that seems to be neglected in some discussions about resources.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
There are two sides to a resource equation – the demand for the resource – and the supply of the resource.
Let’s say we have 2 groups of people – the first group – say 4 people – eat 80% of the resource; and 20 people have to subsist on the remaining 20%?
Do we kill the 19 people so that the remaining one person meets the 20% of the resources alloted to him when the pie was divided?
[Reply]
The main problems of the Philippines are:
(1) Feudalism.
(2) Leaders are self-serving; have no Visions.
(3) No incentives for industrialization. Oligarchs and political families (Hacienda Luisita Mafia), control power and the economy…
Japan inspite of its land area almost the same, as our own; can feed itself. It has almost ten (10) times as much in its Per Capita Income than the Philippines…
[Reply]
$3.5k per capita is overstated. per capita is averaged. The oligarchs income are made per capita higher than realistically is.
[Reply]
Poverty is not caused by overpopulation, but it does a lot to make overpopulation worse.
I think it’s more like “Overpopulation is caused by poverty”. An individual’s financial poverty, leading to limited access to resources and education, possibly delaying the individual’s physical and mental development, limiting the available opportunities for the said individual. Without opportunity, without education, but with just enough to scrape by, the individual marries and has children despite their situation because of ‘love’. Why? Because, simply put, there’s nothing else better to do, they don’t know any better, and children make good servants because they’re virtually free. Multiply this by the population considered below the poverty line, and viola!
You summed it up quite nicely with “economic prosperity lowers the population growth more effectively than population control programs”.
[Reply]
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Einstein
Fist of all I like that last part of the article.As for the rest of the article…
Well said BongV !
To Gabby D:
two words: Analysis Paralysis
[Reply]
GabbyD Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 4:30 am
analysis paralysis? who is paralyzed? not me. if understanding the world == paralysis, then i disagree.
[Reply]
KG Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Cmon I am not saying you are paralyzed.
I was once told by benign0 that I can make things complicated. .
But in your case nasabihan ka na ng “dense” you just shrug it. It is ok not to dwell but to ignore it totally is another story. If you call your style as being a devil’s advocate then make it sound like one. Remember before that benign0 once said that you ask the right questions then one day he too had enough and told you that he answers them as long as it has merit.
Now you get the” tough luck ” answer.
Just my one cent.
You may disagree by all means.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:00 am
Exactly – Karl – empirical, scientific, hard data – of US, China, Japan – has shown that economic reform lowers fertility rates and that government contraceptives distributions programs are ineffective.
So here were are, expecting that our contraceptives distributions programs will be more effective – given against the backdrop of an inutile government – and we expect sterling results out of this.
It’s a double whammy of vacuousness.
[Reply]
KG Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Economic reforms
You have a stand of charter change to remove the “protectionist” portions of the constitution.
Let us go to that.
They say we don’t need charter change for that to happen.
We have this so called PPP that is said to be open to all.Without a long term finacing come on,
How will that invite foreign participation?
What we have is more of the same we will just allow the oligarchs to own more.
Before I don’t buy this oligarch stuff, but I will be blind not to notice.
Same thing with the RH, my stand is i am for reproductive health and for some population control to happen.
Susmaryosep ba?
That is why there is anti Pinoy to see if what i am insisting on is worth it.
You always learn from those who disagree.
If the plan is let the poor have free contraceptives, until when will be the question without economic reform. Same thing with the monetary doleouts of dswd.(CCT) .
That is why i like your Einstein quote.
[Reply]
so ano gusto mo? sige lang ng anak ng anak kahit wala nang mapakain, di na mapag aral o wala ng lugar sa bahay? hihintayin pa ba natin maging pakistan, bangaladesh, o nigeria? mabuti sana kung ang nanganagnak may kakayahan pakainin o papag aralin ang mga anak nila? buti kung middle class o elite dumadami, kung puro mahihirap, di gagana ang sinasabi mo.
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
March 9th, 2011 at 7:01 am
ang gusto ko, magkaroon ka ng trabaho ng hindi lang puro kantot ang inaatupag mo.
upang pagkaroon ka ng pera na pambili ng kailangan mo at hindi ka palamunin.
[Reply]