What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[mannyamador]

---

For those who still dream that the world is "overpopulated"...

More Grain, Less Land
http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=268&r1=1....evel=2&eid=830

Thanks to the continuing increases in crop yields, the world's farmers now actually harvest
several hundred million tons more grain each year on tens of millions of acres less land than
formerly harvested in the 1970s and 1980s.

1965/66-1971/72 data excerpted from World Grain Situation and Outlook, April 1993, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 30; 1972/73-2000/01 data from Grain: World Markets and Trade,
April 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

        WORLD TOTAL GRAINS [1]
      MILLIONS OF METRIC TONS/HECTARES
----------------------------------------------------------
Crop Year    Area Harvested Yield[2]    Production
----------------------------------------------------------
1972/73     661.1      1.73      1140.6
1973/74     688.1      1.82*      1253.1*
1974/75     690.5      1.74      1203.6
1975/76     707.6      1.75      1236.7
1976/77     716.5      1.87*      1342.1*
1977/78     714.1      1.85      1319.5
1978/79     713.3      2.03*      1445.5*
1979/80     710.7      21.98      1410.4
1980/81     722.3      1.98      1429.9
1981/82     732.4      2.02      1482.2*
1982/83     716.9      2.14*      1533.4*
1983/84     707.8      2.08      1469.5
1984/85     711.2      2.29*      1632.0*
1985/86     715.8      2.30*      1646.7*
1986/87     710.4      2.34*      1664.8*
1987/88     686.7      2.33      1597.8
1988/89     688.4      2.25      1549.3
1989/90     695       2.40*      1670.9*
1990/91     695.4      2.54*      1769.2*
1991/92     692.8      2.47      1708.3
1992/93     695.3      2.57*      1789.9*
1993/94[3]   685.6      2.5       1713
1994/95     685.9      2.57      1759.8
1995/96[3]   680.7      2.52      1712.7
1996/97     702.4      2.66*      1870.6*
1997/98     690.5      2.72*      1879.9*
1998/99     684.8      2.73*      1872.9
1999/2000    674.1      2.78*      1873.1
2000/01     664       2.68      1778.2
2001/02[4]   515.5      2.9       1472
2002/03[4]   506.6      2.8       1439
2003/04[4]   513.2      2.8       1455
2004/05[4]   517.9      3.1       1593
----------------------------------------------------------


       TOTAL WORLD RICE 4
----------------------------------------------
        Area  Rough
Crop Year    Area  Production   Milled
----------------------------------------------
2001/02[4]   150.2  3.95      398.6
2002/03[4]   145.7  3.86      377.8
2003/04[4]   149.8  3.86      388.1
2004/05[4]   149.7  3.95      397.8
----------------------------------------------

* New record
[1] Grains include (a) wheat, (b) coarse grains (corn barley, oats, rye, 
  sorghum and millet) and (c) rice.
[2] In metric tons per hectare. One hectare equals 2.47 acres.
[3] The production shortfalls of 1993/94 and 1995/96, eagerly seized 
  upon by overpopulation propagandists as proof that the world had 
  exceeded its *carrying capacity,* were entirely due to reduced harvests 
  in the United States. Because of unprecedented flooding in much of the 
  Midwest, U.S. grain production in 1993/94 declined by more than 93 
  million metric tons from the previous year's record harvest, while the 
  decline in 1995/96 was 80 MMT. In the rest of the world, however, 
  grain production increased in both years: by 19 and 22 million metric 
  tons, respectively.
[4] http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circul..._ t b l. x l s
  http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circul...4/graintoc.htm

Alternative Info and Opinion: http://www.phnix.net
[img width=447 height=60]http://www.phnix.net/phnix_logo02.jpg[/img]
Prolife Phils. http://www.prolife.org.ph

[mannyamador]

Does More Population Mean More Poverty in a Nation?
By Bishop Cesare Bonivento
http://pop.org/main.cfm?id=94&r1=1.0...evel=2&eid=781

This article is adapted from a January 29, 2005, address given by His Excellency Bishop Bonivento at the Family Life International Symposium, held in his diocese of Vanimo, Papua New Guinea. PNG is an island nation near Australia. PRI President Steve Mosher spoke at the symposium, which was co-sponsored by PRI.

In recent months, starting in September-October 2004, PNG's national media reported several appeals made by politicians and other people residing in our country to curb the number of births in PNG. The reason expressed was that overpopulation is the cause of poverty in Papua New Guinea. Consequently, in their opinion, PNG must have a strong policy in favor of birth control.

Since in Papua New Guinea there is already widespread use of contraceptives such as pills, Depo-Provera, and tubal ligations, it is natural to ask: What kind of contraceptive is lacking in Papua New Guinea? The answer is quite obvious: the goal is legal abortion, because abortion is the only *contraceptive* method not allowed in Papua New Guinea. Under the influence of some international agencies, or in any case under the influence of a Western mentality, some people want PNG to be in line with those more developed countries which have legalized abortion, thinking that such a law would bring freedom and more development to our country.

However, these people are not informing PNG of the bad consequences of birth control and of legal abortion. Those bad consequences are apparent to everybody in the Western countries, and nobody can deny them. Therefore, it is compulsory to help the public understand what is at stake when somebody says that more population means more poverty.

Basic Facts

First of all we have to mention some basic and historical facts, which disprove the statement "more population means more poverty." Firstly we have the examples of many countries, which are much better off now with big populations, than when they were fewer in number. For instance:

• In India in 1964, there were 500 million people and a great famine. Now in 2005, with more than one billion people, India is self-sufficient for food.
  
• In 1922, Italy had a population of 27 million people and was one of the nations with a great migration out of the country for lack of food and jobs. In 2005 with a population of 57 million, it is in need of more population in order to keep up with the pace of its development. The same applies to the whole of Western Europe.
  
• China in 1950, at the time of the Communist revolution, had a population of more or less 600 million people and was heavily underdeveloped. Now with a population of 1.3 billion, China is a superpower.

Secondly, statistically speaking, right now there is more than enough food for everybody on earth. The problem of famine is not lack of food, but the uneven distribution of the food available and the unfairness of the international trade system. No one can say that the earth cannot produce enough food, as long we have Western countries throwing away and smashing their crops in order to keep their prices high, and as long as some countries are paying farmers to keep their land idle, as it is happening in Europe.

Thirdly, a lot of grave problems are caused by the decrease of population in the world. We will develop this point later on.

The Europeans and the Americans are not talking of overpopulation in their countries, which are desperately in need of increasing their birthrates.

On the contrary the Europeans and the Americans prefer to talk about overpopulation in the less developed countries, because it is advantageous to them to keep them weak and not to have the less developed countries as competitors in managing raw materials. On the other hand, it is very easy in the less developed countries to attribute to overpopulation all the mistakes caused by social injustice, corruption, and loss of moral values.

A good amount of the information that we receive in Papua New Guinea is gravely biased, and covering up some hidden interests. I give an example.

People and Their Discontents

On November 8, 2004, an article written by Mr. Christopher Taylor appeared in the Post Courier with the title *Importance of population control.* In this article, Mr. Taylor maintains that poverty is caused by population growth, and therefore contraception must be imposed.

In my opinion this article is a typical example of how the problem of population is often approached. The solutions proposed are coming from unilateral considerations, without any deep historical, geographical and sociological analysis. Scientifically speaking, that kind of conclusion is always dangerous.

Mr. Taylor is referring only to the experience of our neighboring countries in order to prove that curbing the population is the guarantee for a better living. The article does not specify which countries the author is talking about; so it is not possible to respond with precision. We know for sure that Singapore is in dire need of population and that Australia needs immigration.

The article forgets to cite those countries which, despite doubling their population, achieved an incredible economic growth. As we said before, this is the case with India, which was affected by a terrible shortage of food 40 years ago, when its population was not more than 500 million. Now it is a country exporting food and developing rapidly even though the population is more than a billion. It is also the case with China, which is a superpower now even though its population doubled. It is the same with Korea, with Italy and with other countries.

The article does not mention the bad experiences of all those countries which endorsed a strong contraception policy, and now they are facing the problem of underpopulation, and especially the problem of an aging population, and therefore they are obliged to open their borders to millions and millions of foreign workers in order to sustain their development. It is the case of all Europe, but in a special way of Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Russia. The latter is sinking in terms of population, gravely jeopardizing its development. Russia is not considered a superpower any more.

There is no mention at all of the efforts made by nations affected by de-population in order to increase their child birthrate: for instance, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, and Singapore are committed to restrict the law in favor of abortion, or to give incentives to parents in order to have more children.

The author is not taking into any consideration the threat to the population and to the economy of PNG posed by HIV/AIDS. AIDS is already decimating our population. Strong contraception and abortion would add tragedy to tragedy.

The article does not give any consideration to moral and spiritual values, which are basic for development. For instance, it does not mention how international trade injustice and internal corruption are causing poor development in PNG and how values such as transparency, honesty, justice, solidarity, education, and family values could strengthen our development.

Demographers' Warnings

I quote only some of the most recent warnings coming from the demographers and the scientific world.

On September 27, 2004, Michael Meyer wrote in Newsweek International an article entitled *Birth Rate.* He said: *Everyone knows there are too many people in the world. Just last week the United Nations warned that many of the world's cities are becoming hopelessly overcrowded.... Yet this is not the full story. To the contrary, in fact. Across the globe, people are having fewer and fewer children. Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to 2.9. And demographers say they're still falling, faster than ever. The world's population will continue to grow-from today's 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we are destined to learn much more about-depopulation-has already begun in a number of countries.*

On February 28, 2003, we had a warning issued by the UN about below-replacement fertility levels. For the first time, the United Nations Population Division foresaw that future fertility levels in most developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to ensure the long-term replacement of the population. By 2050, the UN document says, *three out of every four countries in the less developed regions will be experiencing below-replacement fertility, with all developed countries far below replacement level as well.*

Populations will decline in 33 countries by 2050, according to the report, with countries such as Italy projected to be 22% smaller and the Russian Federation nearly 50% smaller.

The deeper reductions in fertility will have as a consequence a faster aging of the population of developing countries, and this aging will stress social security systems. Globally, the number of older persons (60 years or over) will nearly triple, increasing from 606 million in 2000 to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050.

Another Warning

Another warning came from the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) on August 19, 2004 saying the United States will grow, the rest of the world will shrink.

The PRB claims that almost all of the more developed world will face serious and sustained population decline over the next five decades except for the United States, where an above-replacement fertility rate and immigration will account for continued population growth.

However there is a UN agency which disagrees with all these predictions: It is the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). In 2004, it issued a report that predicts that the world's population will increase by almost 40% by 2050, to 8.9 billion inhabitants. So far nothing new. It is the interpretation of those figures which distances UNFPA from so many others.

In fact UNFPA says that such a demographic increase is an obstacle for development and for the environment, without saying that after that there will be a dangerous decline that will have disastrous consequences.

Why such an evidently contradictory evaluation? Because the warnings of the other UN agencies and of the demographers are jeopardizing UNFPA's effort to curb the population with any means, including legal abortion. UNFPA is the agency supporting the Chinese one-child policy, which includes forced abortion for women having a second child.

Unfortunately we have to add that UNFPA is deeply influencing our educational curriculum in PNG. If we are not on the alert and if we do not counteract this influence, our children will gravely suffer for a wrong education given in our school system.

   Now the real solution of the population growth is not to impose on families a 
   limited number of children, or worse to promote legal abortion. The current 
   international experience says that we will damage the future of our country 
   in doing so. The real solution lies in eliminating international injustice, the 
   negative aspects of modern trade globalization, and also national injustice.

For the good of PNG, it is much better if our politicians and our government concentrate their attention on these issues, rather than listening to some international agencies whose main goal is not our good, but only the curbing of our population under the disguise of development. Diminishing the population does not mean eliminating poverty, but cutting our own throat and compromising our future.

(PRI Review January/February 2005)

Alternative Info and Opinion: http://www.phnix.net
[img width=447 height=60]http://www.phnix.net/phnix_logo02.jpg[/img]
Prolife Phils. http://www.prolife.org.ph

[bad donkey!]

i admit it..I may have done my math wrong but take into account the deductions..Tax (vat.etc.etc.), pagibig, phil-health,SSS.personal health and life insurance..that's 13750 - all of thos..how much is left? did you ever thought that both parent are earing the same amount of salary? the answer is no..the peso is weak, very weak..you can buy less with a hundred peso than you can a year ago.....projections and figures made 6 months ago did not anticipate the rapid decline of the peso. they kept on saying the peso will be stronger..what now?

[benign0]

Mr. mannyamador,

If you are looking for proof that ours is an unproductive society, look around you. Filipinos have to go overseas to find work. Our economy is not productive enough to absorb the millions of Filipinos being added to the roll every year.

A fool looks for statistics to substantiate the obvious.


And what is the point of your copying and pasting those crop yield statistics? Oh I forgot, your faculties don't go beyond copying and pasting.

Maybe I'll do your job for you. Maybe you should show local statistics -- that the Philippines is now a net importer of food. Corn shipped to our ports all the way from Brazil is now cheaper than corn grown at and shipped from Mindanao. Our supermarkets are flooded with milk and dairy products imported from Australia. We were even once on the verge of importing poultry before the bird flu epidemic kicked in. All this from a nation that once was a leading exporter of rice.

Look at our forests. All gone. We have one of the highest rates of rainfall in the world. Yet all we get when we open our taps is an obnoxious burp. Worse, this same rainfall is now becoming a disastrous. How many people have already died from flashfloods, and mudslides, all because we have been foolish enough to chop down all our trees for export (maybe that is an area we can consider ourselves to be productive at ).

Our food security is rapidly slipping, dude, and people like you continue to preach that we should continue our rapid multiplication and continue swamping our resources and ability to create wealth.



-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

A fool looks for statistics to substantiate the obvious

In other words, you DON'T have any evidence whatsover to support your absurd claims. I thought so. What a lame excuse.

The very same things happened in so-called productiove societies at one time or another. So why are they "productive" and we are hopelessly unproductive? What standard or metric do you use to make your evaluation? Or was it all just GUESSWORK?

By the way, they didn't solve their problems with population control. Tell me, how will populaiton control solve lack of productivity? Will it increase the PROPORTION of productive people? Not at all. Has it been shown that overpopulation causes poverty? Not at all. In fact, slow population growth (or worse, zero growth or population decline)( has been shown to cause poverty and economic stagnation.

So the question remains: why should we engage in population control as a poverty alleviation method when it simply doesn't reduce or alleviate poverty?

Oh, but I forgot... logical thinking is quite foreign to you.

[mannyamador]

i admit it..I may have done my math wrong but take into account the deductions..Tax (vat.etc.etc.), pagibig, phil-health,SSS.personal health and life insurance..that's 13750 - all of thos..how much is left? did you ever thought that both parent are earing the same amount of salary? the answer is no..the peso is weak, very weak..you can buy less with a hundred peso than you can a year ago.....projections and figures made 6 months ago did not anticipate the rapid decline of the peso. they kept on saying the peso will be stronger..what now?

Your argument has been sunk. The bottom line is that you can live quite decently in Cebu, Dumaguete, Iloilo, Davao, etc. with that kind of income. When I first moved to Cebu, I was making only about that much, and I rented a nice room in a good neighborhood with free light and water and cable TV (P2800), took public transportation (around P30 a day), paid for laundry (P200 a week), and ate three square meals a day with snacks (P200 a day) and an occasional movie . I even had money left over for clothes and a day or two att the beach.

So do the math again. And this time, do it right instead of making unfounded ASSUMPTIONS.

[mannyamador]

By the way, rice production in the Philippines is down NOT because of overpopulation or lack of productivity. It's because of land conversion and misuse.

Philippines: Rice Production Declining Owing To Land Conversion
http://www.oryza.com/article712.html

The National Statistics Office in the Philippines has warned that because of
the conversion of agricultural farms into industrial, commercial and residential
use, production of rice, the country’s staple food, would decline.

The NSO made the announcement during the data dissemination forum held
Tuesday in this city on the results of the 2002 Censuses on Agriculture and
Fisheries (CAF). The results of the 2002 CAF would help policy makers,
businessmen and investors in formulating programs in improving the country’s
agricultural production.

Census showed that the country’s total farm area in 2002 have decreased by
2.8 percent compared to 1991 figures. The census showed that the country
has a total of 4.8 million agricultural farms covering 9.6 million hectares, which
represents 32.3 percent of the country’s total land area, registered in 2002.

Of these farmlands, 3.9 million hectares in 2.2 million farms are planted with
palay, which is the source of rice.

[benign0]

Dami mo nanamang sinabi. But it seems you still can't skirt the issue of our societies lack of productivity.

Fact remains, whatever the reason is agricultural output is down, and we have lost our food security.

Meanwhile, population continues to gallop away at unsustainable rates.




----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.

[bad donkey!]

By the way, rice production in the Philippines is down NOT because of overpopulation or lack of productivity. It's because of land conversion and misuse.

Philippines: Rice Production Declining Owing To Land Conversion
http://www.oryza.com/article712.html

The National Statistics Office in the Philippines has warned that because of
the conversion of agricultural farms into industrial, commercial and residential
use, production of rice, the country’s staple food, would decline.

The NSO made the announcement during the data dissemination forum held
Tuesday in this city on the results of the 2002 Censuses on Agriculture and
Fisheries (CAF). The results of the 2002 CAF would help policy makers,
businessmen and investors in formulating programs in improving the country’s
agricultural production.

Census showed that the country’s total farm area in 2002 have decreased by
2.8 percent compared to 1991 figures. The census showed that the country
has a total of 4.8 million agricultural farms covering 9.6 million hectares, which
represents 32.3 percent of the country’s total land area, registered in 2002.

Of these farmlands, 3.9 million hectares in 2.2 million farms are planted with
palay, which is the source of rice.

Why do you think this agricultural lands are being converted to residential and industrial lands? Its because of the rapid growth of the population...There it is you just said it yourself.Still think thinking over population doesn't cause poverty? Farm lands converted to residential lands? Do this residents grow there own food? No they don't. "The National Statistics Office in the Philippines has warned that because of
the conversion of agricultural farms into industrial, commercial and residential
use, production of rice, the country’s staple food, would decline" This simply means..more population means more lands are being converted equals to less farmlands. Less farmlands means lesser food supply. Lesser food supply means lesser food available for the population. Lesser food for the population means poverty...If you have the time ask anyone living in the slums..Would they prefer to have 1 child or 5? With the amount they are making they would rather have one. Because most of the less fortunate filipinos and they compose a very large percentage of the population which is the target of the goverment. They have no work and nothing to do and they have alot of free time to do it. When the wife gets pregnant even if they don't want it, they have no choice. Lets think about it.

[mannyamador]

Dami mo nanamang sinabi. But it seems you still can't skirt the issue of our societies lack of productivity.{

As if population control will solve that!

So while you want us to merrily waste millions on population control (which neither raises productivity or alleviates poverty), the real causes of poverty remain unaddressed.

Real smart, Bluto.