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

[dacs]

---

Just wondering... should we wait until there is environmental deterioration, impaired quality of life, or a population crash (read: lots of people dying of hunger) before we start controlling population growth? At what point does the church intend to say "Stop! There's too many people!"?

Probably never.

You seem to assume that the Church just allow its members to 'produce' without due consideration. It never is the stand of the Church. In fact, she insist that married couples should act responsibly in living a Christian life. She has always ask her flock to discipline their body and to always consider the moral dimension of the conjugal union. In that conjugal union, the possibility of having a child is present and is a natural result of such union. Yet, she warns her flock that knowingly and willfully counter-acting the possibility of child-bearing is against natural and divine law - and is therefore immoral.

1 Corinthians 6:19 – 'Do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For "the two," it says, "will become one flesh." But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body. ?' This is what is ask from Christians. To use contraceptions or abortaficients to counter-act the possibility of getting pregnant is not just a sin against our own body, but - much much more importantly - also a sin against God.

If the current economic problems aren't caused by over-population, does adding more people help alleviate the problem or worsen it?

How much is 'more', bro? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000?

Do you think that the others (who have the same view as you) agree to your quantification of what 'more' means? Do you really have any idea of what is the quantifiable value of 'enough food' or 'enough people'? Some people actually consume 'enough food' at a quantity which may considered 'meager' by someone else. The reverse may also be true. Some people may be consuming 'enough' food which may also be considered by others as an exercise of gluttony. Who decide what, bro.

[mannyamador]

I agree with Deus....proof is i'm the youngest and 13th child of the family.

Such anecdotal "evidence", while good for "masa" consumption, simply ignores the realities of national economics, and is really quite useless in such debates. I can't stop you from engaging in rants against your parents, but such immaturity has no place when it comes to discussing or determining national policy.

[mannyamador]

Just wondering... should we wait until there is environmental deterioration, impaired quality of life, or a population crash (read: lots of people dying of hunger) before we start controlling population growth?

No need to wonder. So far, there are VERY FEW cases of real "overpopulation" (if any). It hardly ever does happen on a national scale.

If the current economic problems aren't caused by over-population, does adding more people help alleviate the problem or worsen it?

Having population growth doesn't necessarily worsen it. In fact, it may improve the situation because people can PRODUCE for more than they usually consume. What we should be asking is whether the millions wasted on population control programs will worsen the economic situation and further destroy the basic social unit: the family.

Of course, the real solution to our economic problems is to stop the causes of poverty (greed, economic injustice, mismanagement by corrupt politicians, etc.). Population is really not much of a factor since it does not cause our economic problems.

As Dacs pointed out, it's easy to make claims about population causing this or that, but when it comes to really defining the parameters, these claims fail. it's not as simple as the population control fanatics claim it to be.

[Deus]

Pure conjecture. Remember, you have claimed a CAUSAL relationship. But you totally fail to demonstrate it.

This is sad. Have you now resorted to blatantly distorting your opponent's posts? Now, let me dig out what I wrote in a previous post:

A low population doesn't necessarily mean no poverty, and a high population doesn’t necessarily cause poverty. What a high population does do is intensify already existing conditions of poverty by diverting much needed resources to support a high populace.

Nowhere did I mention causal relationship. I instead claim it to be a contributing factor, one of many. I remember asking you once before if you were dishonest. Well, are you?

And you have totally failed to show that you're outrageous example of the Netherlands with a billion people is even remotely possible in any reasonable time we can predict.

Of course. We'd be living in space by then. Basically your defense is, "It's no use planning for it, because it's a long, long time away."

Besides it's irrelevant. Will you or will you not admit that the Netherlands with a billion people can or cannot support itself? And summarily, can a nation, by exeeding it's resources, have too many people?

Wrong again. We have more than enough resources for several times our population. You are mistaking other factors (such as greed and unjust economic structures) as "population" problems. This is a classic error. If you had bothered to read the earlier posts in this thread, you will see this has been covered before.

We do? I guess we aren't importing rice then! And oh! Maybe some resources ARE endemic to our country! Like oil! And resources used to buy oll, like money! We aren't living in a closed system, some vital resources are needed beyond any capacity of ours to produce. If you seriously think our country can be self sufficient I pity you.

Also, I notice "several times our population". Should we reach that magic mark and go over it, would we then expect you to support population control?

You are basing your entire claim of the existence "overpopultion" on a wrong deifinition of the term. You seem to think it's an imbalance between resources and population. Well, HELLO, that mindless definition has been shown to be wrong several times in this thread Here, yet AGAIN, is the definition of "overpopulation" form the Merriam Webster Dictionary (emphasis added):

Â* Â*: the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental
Â* Â*deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash

Take note, the term directly points to a CAUSAL relationship. Population density MUST ACTUALLY BE THE MAJOR CAUSE of certain effects if "overpopulation" is to be said to exist. If these effects, however, are caused by other factors such as war, greed, injustice (as in the Philippines), then there is NO overpopulation. And as I have been pointing out, you have completely failed to show that population density actually CAUSES poverty or any of the other effects stated in the definition above.

Which is why dictionaries are written by linguists and not scientists. No serious scientist depends on a definition from a dictionary, because well, it's a dictionary.

Finally, the recent articles on other countries prove the existence of depopulation and illustrate the disastrous effects of population control policy. In case you haven't noticed, this thread has been expanded to be a catch-all thread on all Â*prolife/population discussions. I have tried more than Â*once to create other, more focused threads related to the general topic, but the admins reprimanded me and told me to post in this thread. Thus, the topics here have been greatly expanded and cover more than just HB 3773. You would have figured that out if you took some time to read the previous posts.

And again I will say that the situations in first and third world countries aren't similar. Showing examples of depopulation doesn't disprove overpopulation just as well as showing examples of overpopulation doesn't disprove depopulation. Something can exist somewhere and not exist somewhere else. Continuing to post such useless examples only lowers your credibility.

[jnex]

I agree with Deus....proof is i'm the youngest and 13th child of the family.

Such anecdotal "evidence", while good for "masa" consumption, simply ignores the realities of national economics, and is really quite useless in such debates. I can't stop you from engaging in rants against your parents, but such immaturity has no place when it comes to discussing or determining national policy.

Sobraha ra pud nimo ka insultador sir, im just expressing my facet of life that relates on how our family overhanged having more family members backing with very limited earnings..and that still connects to what you called economics...nganong ma useless man kung mag-isturyag bahin sa poor masses nga kung consumahon ang poor masses sa Pilipinas ang pinaka daghag membro sa pamilya nga nagpuyo sa dili balansing pangita sa consumption.

[Deus]

No need to wonder. So far, there are VERY FEW cases of real "overpopulation" (if any). It hardly ever does happen on a national scale.

"Very Few" and "Hardly ever?" So, I take it if/when it happens you'd support it, right?

Having population growth doesn't necessarily worsen it. In fact, it may improve the situation because people can PRODUCE for more than they usually consume.

Which, as I adressed to nindotkanon, is a model patterned on an obsolete system. Production now does not mean actual goods, but instead knowlege and services. A purely numbers based economy focuses only on short term gains without people developing the long term skills used for further advancement. Which is why a thousand skilled sewers will nonetheless cost less than one skilled programmer.

Of course, the real solution to our economic problems is to stop the causes of poverty (greed, economic injustice, mismanagement by corrupt politicians, etc.). Population is really not much of a factor since it does not cause our economic problems.

And this is a factor too, and solvable, except for the fact that it goes against the very basics of human nature. The same can be said for communism for example. Theoretically perfect in every way, but ultimately doomed to failure. You won't stop human nature. You might was well be advocating communism.

[mannyamador]

"What a high population does do is intensify already existing conditions
of poverty by diverting much needed resources to support a high populace."

Nowhere did I mention causal relationship. I instead claim it to be a contributing factor, one of many.

"What a high population does do is ..." <-- In case you haven't noticed, that IS a causal relationship! Now what was that you were doing? Pontificating about honesty? Yeah right.

Again, you make the same error. "Overpopulation" exists when there is an effect actually CAUSED by population density. Therte's no BS about "contributing" factors involved. And even that contention has not been proven. Population density can be an alleviating factor since it can allow for more production, mass markets, and more efficient distribution.

So here we are again: you simply have not been able to demonstrate the causal relationshop you have claimed.

And summarily, can a nation, by exeeding it's resources, have too many people?

Now you're avoiding the basic issue: can this even happen?

The basic contention of the prolife/anti-population control movement is that the claims about overpopulation are NOT realistc (that they are alarmist). Therefore, it is valid to ask: are any of these oh-so-terrible theoretical scenarios realistic? And the answer is NO.

Paul Ehrlich, one such population doomsayer, made all sorts of doomsday population prediction, and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS COME TO PASS. It is wise, therefore, to subject your claims to the same scrutiny. And despite your obviuous intelligence, your claims fail just as Ehrlich's did.

We do? I guess we aren't importing rice then!

Check your local NFA storehouse. Chances are the stocks are rotting away or being pilfered! I have contacts in the DA who attested to how commonplace this occurence is. We produce enough rice. We do so consistently. The problem is not population, the problem is theft and corruption.

The bottom line is that you are yet AGAIN barking up the wrong tree. You cannot grasp the real factors causing shortages so you find a convenient scapegoat:

"Oh, it must be overpopulation! Never mind that shortages are actually caused by systematic thievery
at the highest levels of government! We can't blame that! We don't dare touch those sacred cows.
So let's blame overpopulation."

Madness.

Which is why dictionaries are written by linguists and not scientists. No serious scientist depends on a definition from a dictionary, because well, it's a dictionary.

Oh so now YOUR self-serving definition is better? On who's say-so? Yours? We're supposed to take your word for it? Don't kid yourself.

You just lost the argument. Your definition is NOT authoritative, and you don't have any credibility to question one that is. I'll take Merriam-Webster over you any day.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the Merriam-Webster definition is excellent because it is not inutile like your is. When most people thionk there's an "overpopulation" problem, they immediately (and wrongly) think the solution ispopulation control. But if we use your wrong definition, then ANY shortage can become an "overpopulation" problem, and people will stupidly start thinking of population control to address problems that were caused by OTHER factors. That is idiotic.

Thus the definition I have provided from Merriam-Webster is far better. If used properly, it immediately points to the proper solution by first having people actually identify the REAL CAUSES of shortages, poverty, etc. But you simply wish to gloss over this.

Sorry, but real problem-solving requires that you engage in real thinking, even if it is difficult. Oversimplifying things and pointing to "overpopulation" as the scapegoat for problems that are caused by other factors just doesn't make the grade.

Showing examples of depopulation doesn't disprove overpopulation just as well as showing examples of overpopulation doesn't disprove depopulation. Something can exist somewhere and not exist somewhere else. Continuing to post such useless examples only lowers your credibility.

Wrong again. The population doomsayers continue to claim GLOBAL overpopulation. Therefore, showing that depopulation is the next looming problem debunks their claim. It also shows the disastrous effects of population policy.

But I can undertsand why you would want us to keep quiet about this truth.

[Deus]

Such anecdotal "evidence", while good for "masa" consumption, simply ignores the realities of national economics, and is really quite useless in such debates. I can't stop you from engaging in rants against your parents, but such immaturity has no place when it comes to discussing or determining national policy.

Such "useless information" are facts from the ground. To ignore them is to ignore a first hand witness.

[mannyamador]

"Very Few" and "Hardly ever?" So, I take it if/when it happens you'd support it, right?

Support what? The mindless scapegoat excuse? First you'd have to prove it exists. At the rate you're going, I'll be dead and buried before you do so.

Production now does not mean actual goods, but instead knowlege and services. A purely numbers based economy focuses only on short term gains without people developing the long term skills used for further advancement. Which is why a thousand skilled sewers will nonetheless cost less than one skilled programmer.

But that still doesn't change the truth. You STILL cannot prove the existence of overpopulation with that.

And this is a factor too, and solvable, except for the fact that it goes against the very basics of human nature. The same can be said for communism for example. Theoretically perfect in every way, but ultimately doomed to failure. You won't stop human nature. You might was well be advocating communism.

Somehow equating the advocacy of basic good governance with advocating communism just sounds really desperate on your part. Pretending not to see the difference just doesn't improve your credibility.

Honesty and doing a good job is hardly against human nature. And given a system which rewards such, you will even have a profit motive as well.

[Deus]

"What a high population does do is ..." <-- In case you haven't noticed, that IS a causal relationship! Now what was that you were doing? Pontificating about honesty? Yeah right.

Oh, you missed the "intensify already existing conditions of poverty" part. There is no causal relationship between fire and oxygen either, but oxygen will intensify fire.

Again, you make the same error. "Overpopulation" exists when there is an effect actually CAUSED by population density. Therte's no BS about "contributing" factors involved. And even that contention has not been proven. Population density can be an alleviating factor since it can allow for more production, mass markets, and more efficient distribution.

So, a population doesn't consume resources then? And a population cannot be compared to it's environment by it's density? And a dense and thereby to it's environment populous population doesn't consume a lot of resources? And aren't resources limited? Why is that so hard to parse?

The basic contention of the prolife/anti-population control movement is that the claims about overpopulation are NOT realistc (that they are alarmist). Therefore, it is valid to ask: are any of these oh-so-terrible theoretical scenarios realistic? And the answer is NO.

But I'm not talking about the world, I'm talking about one single part of the world, while simultaneously accepting plenty for others. Sure, others could save us. The US alone has enough grain stocks to feed exclusively to their livestock. They can feed us, clothe us, bathe us. Wanna bet on it?

Check your local NFA storehouse. Chances are the stocks are rotting away or being pilfered! I have contacts in the DA who attested to how commonplace this occurence is. We produce enough rice. We do so consistently. The problem is not population, the problem is theft and corruption.

So, where is this rice going? These "bad guys" aren't keeping it for themselves. They sell it. It goes back to the market, where it again becomes available for consumption. And even then we're still importing.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the Merriam-Webster definition is excellent because it is not inutile like your is. When most people thionk there's an "overpopulation" problem, they immediately (and wrongly) think the solution ispopulation control. But if we use your wrong definition, then ANY shortage can become an "overpopulation" problem, and people will stupidly start thinking of population control to address problems that were caused by OTHER factors. That is idiotic.

Thus the definition I have provided from Merriam-Webster is far better. If used properly, it immediately points to the proper solution by first having people actually identify the REAL CAUSES of shortages, poverty, etc. But you simply wish to gloss over this

But I never specified the term "shortage", have I? For the purpouses of my argument, the resources remain constant (untill the subsequent investment in further resources). It is the population that grows, not the resource that shrinks. I'd think that shuts down your nightmare scenario. Please try understanding other people's posts before going off replying stupidly.

Sorry, but real problem-solving requires that you engage in real thinking, even if it is difficult. Oversimplifying things and pointing to "overpopulation" as the scapegoat for problems that are caused by other factors just doesn't make the grade.

Oversimplifying like expecting to solve completely different problems (like overpopulation and depopulation) the same way? Do tell!

Wrong again. The population doomsayers continue to claim GLOBAL overpopulation. Therefore, showing that depopulation is the next looming problem debunks their claim. It also shows the disastrous effects of population policy.

Which is not my claim. You DO wish to adress my claim right, and not somebody else'?

But I can undertsand why you would want us to keep quiet about this truth.

Why would I? Do I want innocent babies being killed? Do I revel in their screams and cries of torment? I know! I like drinking blood! Babies blood! There's a conspiracy in this right? I know, cause I have to keep it quiet.