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

[battouter]

---

some people are just pure evil... wahehehe

PRO-LIFE

[bad donkey!]

get real guys! it really simple mathematics.....there has to be a balance 1:1 ratio..some of you do not get this because you grew up eating 3 times a day and you can eat to your hearts content..but to some people 1 cup of rice has to be divided by 3 plus 1 serving of noodle. It's not an assumption my friend..It is for real.Anyone that considers over population is not the cause of poverty is just plain crazy.

[battouter]

overpopulation causes poverty is crazeee...

pinas is a catholic nation... why dont you live somewhere else, wahehehe...

PRO-LIFe pa rin...

[benign0]

Anybody who considers overpopulation to be a non-issue is surely delusional.

Still blinded by your unfoudned assumptions? Oh well... GET REAL and look at the facts kid.

Look who's calling the kettle black.

I just showed you a simple mathematical truth.

Take the example of a school teacher making Php8,000 a month. Which situation would pose more of a challenge to her -- feeding eight kids or feeding two?


What say you?

Or is this as difficult a question as the other simple ones I raised in the other threads.



I guess it's expecting too much from someone who is in the middle of promoting such blatant primitivism.





-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!
[img width=150 height=68]http://www.getrealphilippines.com/images/begto.gif[/img]

[mannyamador]

Anyone that considers over population is not the cause of poverty is just plain crazy.

That's just another opinion, and, like anal orifices, everyone has one. It's is an entriely different matter, howevwer, to be able to SUBSTANTIATE a claim. And this is where the population doomsayers fail. Study after study has already shown that "overpopulation" is a myth. Many of those studies have been quoted in previous posts. Perhaps we should read them first.

I just showed you a simple mathematical truth.
Take the example of a school teacher making Php8,000 a month....

One may be tempted, as in the "schoolteacher" argument above, to transfer the small-scale mathematics of small population sample (as in one family) to a national scale (the national population). It is understandable that those lacking in mental bandwidth would prefer this, but it's just not that simple.

It does cost less to feed one child instead of two. But when you take into considertation economies of scale, does it really penalize the national economy to have more people instead of less? That is the question that HB 3773 and other useless population control measures brings to the fore.

The added value of a large populations is more than just the sum of the costs and production of many individuals. Large populations enable economies of scale that are impossible in small populations. Furthermore, human interaction in large populations increases almost geometrically, enabling unprecedented creativity, cooperation, and production. It enables the accumulation of capital and the large-scale projects they finance. It allows consumer markets to grow. It creates commodities which drives down prices and enables ever more people to gain access to education and services. It enables the efficient distribution of public services. That is why there are many nations (e.g. US, England, Hong Kong) that experienced some of their greatest economic growth during periods where they had booming population growth that fed their economic growth.

The bottomline is that the math is NOT that simple, despite the fact that some population control zealots don't have the intelligence to grasp that higher concept.

Let me quote part of my previous post:

Sheldon Richman of the CATO Institute, in his testimony on International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act further revealed that the United States, England, Hongkong, and other countries became rich during unprecedented growth in population. The most densely populated nations are among the richest. There are many nations much richer than the Philippines where population density is greater. There are also many nations much poorer than the Philippines where population density is lower. Low population density may contribute to poverty.

COUNTRY ----------------GNP($) PER CAPITA----------------PERSONS PER SQ. KM.

West Germany--------------10,940---------------------------------635
Netherlands----------------9,316---------------------------------346
Japan---------------------11,300---------------------------------840
Hongkong-------------------7,136-------------------------------4,850
South Korea----------------2,150-------------------------------1,121
India------------------------270---------------------------------606
Philippines----------------1,740---------------------------------161
Ethiopia---------------------284----------------------------------27
Zambia-----------------------730-----------------------------------8

Source: Statistical Abstract of U.S. World Development Report 1987

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]

Lest anyone be misled by the errors made by M. Gallego in his article on Zero Populaiton Growth (ZPG), here again is a short critique of the article.

The UNPD has already predicted the disastrous effects of such an idiotic and ill-advised endeavor such as the ZPG.
[code] "The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if
combined with increases in life expectancy, is population aging,
whereby the share of older persons in a population increases
relative to that of younger persons."

"Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is
expected almost to triple, increasing from 672 million in 2005 to
nearly 1.9 billion by 2050. Whereas 6 out of every 10 of those
older persons live today in developing countries, by 2050, 8 out
of every 10 will do so. An even more marked increase is expected
in the number of the oldest-old (persons aged 80 years or over):
from 86 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050. In developing
countries, the rise will be from 42 million to 278 million,
indicating that by 2050 most oldest-old will live in the
developing world."[/PRE]
Now let's analyze the article benign0 so heartily recommends. The author of the article on ZPG, the so-called "esteemed" Manuel Gallego III, seems to have unexplained lapses in logic, as in this section from his article (the error is in boldface; note that I have quoted MORE than needed so as not to quote him out of context):

  In the foreword of the Population Policy for South Africa, April
  1998, Geraldine J. Fraser-Moleketi, Minister of Welfare and
  Population Development, states: 

    "Our country is one of the few countries in the world where the
    fertility rate has been significantly reduced while the
    majority of the population has remained poor, which contradicts
    the belief that the majority of our people are poor because
    they have too many children."

  The observations derived from Table 1 and the above statement
  represent a dominant school of thought, which suggests that
  mitigating population growth in and of itself does not alleviate
  poverty. Unfortunately, while such school of thought is arguably
  correct in every respect, the same has diminished the emphasis
  to mitigate population growth as one of the critical elements
  in alleviating poverty -- particularly with respect to developing
  economies. In the case of developed economies, which generally
  exhibit low or even negative population growth rates, such
  de-emphasis on mitigating population growth, as one of several
  means of alleviating poverty, would appear appropriate. However,
  in the case of developing economies like the Philippines, which
  generally exhibit alarmingly high population growth rates (from
  the least educated sectors of society), mitigating population
  growth, among other factors, should be at the forefront of poverty
  alleviation. Even the above statement of South Africa's Minister
  of Welfare and Population Development, while supporting the said
  school of thought, is indeed a tacit admission that most other
  countries that have mitigated population growth have resulted
  in the reduction of poverty.

Now how in the world did Gallego conclude that the statement of the South African Minister admits what it clearly denies? Gallego openly admits that the idea that the dominant school of thought is right in saying that "overpopulation doesn't cause poverty, but then turns around and effectively claims it does, justifying it by saying it happens in poor countries. What an unjustified leap in logic! He clearly doesn't understand that he has just contradicted himself. Neither does he understand his own data and quotations. He obviously shares bening0's propensity for bad reasoning.

Now is this the kind of "brilliant" thinking Bening0 wants us to heed? Such nonsense!

Nancy Suleik, in an article in the Financial Executives (FINEX) Digest has this to say (emphasis added):

  "It is, however, intellectually dishonest to continue to harp on 
  this old argument which has been used to justify sterilization,
  abortion and contraception, when the UN itself came out with a 
  report in 2001 that debunked the most dire predictions about the
  consequences of population growth. The study said that these have
  been proven unfounded, and remain unlikely to occur even if world
  population rises up to 8.9 billion in 2050. Moreover, arguments 
  about rapid population growth resulting in the depletion of
  non-renewable resources such as oil and minerals have also been 
  disproved with findings that although the consumption of such
  resources has risen, the estimated amount of resources as yet 
  untapped has also risen. Likewise the environment argument --
  pollution, habitat destruction, global warming, etc. -- has also 
  been shown to be specious, as these environmental concerns have
  largely been "due to modes of production, not to the size, growth 
  and distribution of population."

Sheldon Richman of the CATO Institute, in his testimony on International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act further revealed that the United States, England, Hongkong, and other countries became rich during unprecedented growth in population. The most densely populated nations are among the richest. There are many nations much richer than the Philippines where population density is greater. There are also many nations much poorer than the Philippines where population density is lower. Low population density may contribute to poverty.

COUNTRY ----------------GNP($) PER CAPITA----------------PERSONS PER SQ. KM.

West Germany--------------10,940---------------------------------635
Netherlands----------------9,316---------------------------------346
Japan---------------------11,300---------------------------------840
Hongkong-------------------7,136-------------------------------4,850
South Korea----------------2,150-------------------------------1,121
India------------------------270---------------------------------606
Philippines----------------1,740---------------------------------161
Ethiopia---------------------284----------------------------------27
Zambia-----------------------730-----------------------------------8

Source: Statistical Abstract of U.S. World Development Report 1987

I also noticed that the "esteemed" Manuel Gallegos III has a factual error in his article, which should put up a red flag for any intelligent reader concerned with accuracy. For example he claims that the Catholic Church retracted the excommunication of Galileo. This is false. Galileo was never excommunicated. He was "condemend on SUSPICION of heresy", which in itself is a debatable ruling since Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by the Church. Obviously the tribunal in Galileo's time was wrong to issue such a condemnation, but so is Gallegos today wrong when it comes to the facts.

Needless to say, benign0's admiration is quite misplaced. But thanks anyway for helping keep this thread active (har har!)

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

[pri@m26]

hahaha them extreme catholic moralist. if we take a look at this, they continue ranting against contraception and birth control. I know this is irrelevant, but as I would always look at the situation, those greedy priests and catholic orders are not one who made move to help those who are in need.

see example: Perpetual Hospital, well i dont really see freaking nuns accepting poor patients under charity...I know my uncle was sent out, left to die because he could not make a deposit yet.
The university of pretentious conios (and i mean the pure meaning of it) and conias that is ran by priests--do they accept charity student?Â*

I suggest before the church goes on berating the law to promote a good life, they should see to it that they have, in their little ways, contributed and provided maskin charity lang.Â* lets all be a good citizen they say....hahahaha...its a s**t right into 'em priest faces.

[mannyamador]

hahaha them extreme catholic moralist. if we take a look at this, they continue ranting against contraception and birth control. I know this is irrelevant, but as I would always look at the situation, those greedy priests and catholic orders are not one who made move to help those who are in need.

You're right. It IS irrelevant. Maybe you ought to try finding a real argument for this forum. And perhaps you should try not being so obnoxious so as not to alert the moderators.

[benign0]

Again marami ka nanamang sinabi, but it seems the following huge assumption which is in the following post of yours is where your entire argument rests:

The added value of a large populations is more than just the sum of the costs and production of many individuals. Large populations enable economies of scale that are impossible in small populations. Furthermore, human interaction in large populations increases almost geometrically, enabling unprecedented creativity, cooperation, and production. It enables the accumulation of capital and the large-scale projects they finance. It allows consumer markets to grow. It creates commodities which drives down prices and enables ever more people to gain access to education and services. It enables the efficient distribution of public services. That is why there are many nations (e.g. US, England, Hong Kong) that experienced some of their greatest economic growth during periods where they had booming population growth that fed their economic growth.

In essence, you assume that Filipinos are a creative, cooperative, and productive people.

Now that is ONE BIG ASSUMPTION if I ever saw one -- attributing these three traits -- creative, cooperative, and productive -- to a people that has so far in its history exhibited none of the above. Which goes back to my original assertion, does it make sense for a people who lack the traits that enable the creation of huge amounts of value for a national economy to multiply like rabbits?

Take the jeepney. In its 50 year history it has pretty much remained the same -- same mediocre engineering and technology. Compare that to the Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese who both started out with the same job-shop style of manufacturing machinery, appliances, and other goods. Their productivity has vastly increased and now use world-class manufacturing technology to deliver higher valued goods. What did it take to achieve this feat? You guessed it -- those three virtues you cited: creativity and productivity.

Now we go too cooperativeness. Are Filipinos cooperative? Take a look around you -- at the chaos and anarchy going on. We are no where near as cohesive and singularly focused in our goals as the Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, and now, the Singaporeans and the Malaysians. All we are now are a bunch of tribal units thrown together and called "the Phlippines".


So get this: Are Filipinos creative, cooperative, and productive? No. Therefore exponentially increasing the numbers of a people who utterly lack the capability, will, and wherewithal to achieve a commensurate increases in production and capacity to create value will result (and in fact already has resulted) in impoverishment and starvation.


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

[mannyamador]

NOTE: emphasis added to quote

Now that is ONE BIG ASSUMPTION if I ever saw one -- attributing these three traits -- creative, cooperative, and productive -- to a people that has so far in its history exhibited none of the above.

Oh my, now YOU'RE making the big assumption. But then making unsubstantiated claims is your trademark. Tsk, tsk...

Philippine history is full of examples of creativity, cooperation, and productivity, just as with almost ANY society that has enough population density. Of course there are examples of just the opposite, but those can be found in abundance in ANY society too. The point which you do not have the capacity to grasp, however, is that the market forces that are required by modern economies will not be present without large populations.

Look at the brilliant creativity of our musicians here in Cebu. Would they be able to record and distribute their music if there were not a market for it? No. Would they be able to communicate effectivelyand economically across the islands with other musicians and producers without the MASS communications enabled by market forces? No. If you take a walk along Ayala Avenue in Makati, you will find quite a number of highrises. There are also lots of malls in Manila and Cebu. Now tell me if these could have ever been economically built without the markets and corporate activity (a form of cooperation) created by high population density? No. The dropping costs of internet access in the Philippines, along with greater bandwidth, will not happen without a large population accessing the internet. Will the increased productivity this brings about come to pass without that large pool of users? No. There are just too many examples of how a large population (with corrsponding population density, of course) acts as an economic enabler in the Philippines, as well as in other countries.

Perhaps you may try to argue that Filipinos could be MORE productive, creative, and cooprative. Perhaps they could, but then that will NOT be solved by population control. And shrinking the population (ot stopping its growth) will create even more economic problems without increasing creativity, productivity, or cooperation. There ARE problems in the Philippines, but they are NOT caused by "overpopulation".

Now going back to your idiotic assertion. You stated that Filipinos in their history have exhibited NONE of the abovementioned traits. So even ciitng ONE instance proves you wrong. And so you are.

And so far you haven't cited any evidecne whatsoever to substantiate the idiotic claim that "overpopulation" causes poverty. I, on the other hand, have cited numerous studies and instances that show that it does not. If you can muster the attention span to read through the previous posts in this thread, you will find them. But perhaps that's wishful thinking.

Ah well, proving you wrong is just getting too easy. Yawn...

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