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

[migzz]

---

Go Forth and Multiply but Then Subtract, Priest Warns Couples. Fr Sean McDonagh, a Columban missionary and expert on the environment, says that unless we reduce population growth, more than 11,000 species face extinction. In his latest book, 'The Death of Life' he says that the size of the world's population is such that the Catholic Church must revisit its teaching on birth control. The teaching that each act of sexual intercourse must be open to life leads to larger families, that will stress global ecosystems within four or five decades. This lead to a dramatic fall in human population which may well be permanent because the damage to the earth's fertility could be irreversible. Fr McDonagh claims that the battle to save the planet is as important as the fight against slavery or to secure workers' rights. He says that political and economic decision-makers do not appreciate the way that insatiable demands are tearing apart the web of life, with disastrous consequences for future generations and also accuses the Church of staying silent about the threat to the environment throughout most of the 20th century. January 18, 2005 Irish Independent

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

There is no overpopulation. Hinimo himo ra ni sa mga evil leaders. They want to kill more babies. They dont want to share this beautiful world to future generations. They are simply greedy.

Anyway I travel all over the Philippines and I can say, we can accomodate millions more if not billion Filipinos and everything will be enough because God will provide.

Â* And I thought PHILIPPINES is a sorry country .... now you want it occupied by BILLIONS of people ? Ano ba talaga ateh ?

[mannyamador]

A Guide to Population Issues.
More of Us Than We Need.
Go Forth and Multiply but Then Subtract, Priest Warns Couples.

Anyone notice something about the silly posts above? They ALL make the same mistake. They merely ASSUME that "overpopulation" causes certain dreaded conditions, but they all neglect to PROVE the connection! What idiocy!

Even worse is the assumption that the earth is somewhere near running out of space. Maybe the author forgot that most of the world's useful land is uninhabited and underutilized.

So when am I going to see a real attempt at disproving the solid evidence I've posted earlier? Simplistic claims aren't proof. Solid evidence is. i haven't yet seen you or anyone post anything that proves a CAUSAL link between population density/size and national poverty or widespread environmental degradation.

[yataoy]

A Guide to Population Issues.
More of Us Than We Need.
Go Forth and Multiply but Then Subtract, Priest Warns Couples.

Anyone notice something about the silly posts above? They ALL make the same mistake. They merely ASSUME that "overpopulation" causes certain dreaded conditions, but they all neglect to PROVE the connection! What idiocy!

Even worse is the assumption that the earth is somewhere near running out of space. Maybe the author forgot that most of the world's useful land is uninhabited and underutilized.

So when am I going to see a real attempt at disproving the solid evidence I've posted earlier? Simplistic claims aren't proof. Solid evidence is. i haven't yet seen you or anyone post anything that proves a CAUSAL link between population density/size and national poverty or widespread environmental degradation.

nabasa na ba to nimo ang gisulti ni fr. mcdonagh? pataka ra ka'g panginsulto da!

syaro, kahibalo man ang tanan nga kon mo subra's kadaghan ang mga tawo og dili muapas ang technology, mahutdan gyud ta'g pagkaon.

k'yata nimo oy!

[migzz]

pasagdi lang na siya kay wala man silay calculator sa ila... di man gyud kuno mapuno ang kalibutan... ofcourse wala pa kaayo evidence karon kay wala pa gyud napuno... pero eventually... puno gyud... kung ang population mu-double... dili ra tao mudouble... it will be twice of everything... twice as many cars... twice as many buildings, roads, pollutions, extinctions of animal species everything... if u know the statistics... ang mga develop countries consumes 86% of the worlds consumptions... kung ingnun ta mo develope tanan nasud... unsaun pagpakaun sa tanan tao? puno na ug tao, balay etc... asa man nato buhiun mga kan-unon? you dont need "cut and paste" evidence to see that... common sense lang... he and his petition will be idiocy of the future...

[mannyamador]

it will be twice of everything... twice as many cars... twice as many buildings, roads, pollutions, extinctions of animal species everything... if u know the statistics... ang mga develop countries consumes 86% of the worlds consumptions.

Your own "evidence" shows how mindless the "overpopulation" hysteria is. The problem is GREED, injustice, and bad management of resources. THAT is what you have to solve. Having fewer people won't be a lasting solution if you don't get to the ROOT CAUSES.

Population control will not solve those.

[migzz]

it will be twice of everything... twice as many cars... twice as many buildings, roads, pollutions, extinctions of animal species everything... if u know the statistics... ang mga develop countries consumes 86% of the worlds consumptions.

Your own "evidence" shows how mindless the "overpopulation" hysteria is. The problem is GREED, injustice, and bad management of resources. THAT is what you have to solve. Having fewer people won't be a lasting solution if you don't get to the ROOT CAUSES.

Population control will not solve those.

lets be realistic here... greed & injustice... karaan na kaayo ng problema nato, wala man gani na sulbad ang ginoo... ug hantod karon wala pa gihapon na nasulbad... ug dili na gyud na siguro masulbad kay ang tao dili perfect... even if you are perfect in managing the resources, how will it solve the bloating population? example... ingnun ta nga ang science and technology in medicine can & will prolong life in the future... and it will also improve birth rate and minimize infant mortality... kung mao na... dili ba musamot ug kadaghan ang tao ana? and syempre... kung ni daghan ang tao... siguro naman makasabot ka nga kinihanglan sila ug puy-anan, sakyanan, eskwelahan, bus, kalsada, pagkaun, tubig, all basic needs etc. tanan mo double... dili lang ang tao... so eventually it will maxed out... ang gikinahanglan nato nga population mas gamay pas atong population karon... fewer people can help improve sustainable growth... dapat balance..

tell me in ur own words why do u think there's no overpopulation? ur common sense...

[yataoy]

it will be twice of everything... twice as many cars... twice as many buildings, roads, pollutions, extinctions of animal species everything... if u know the statistics... ang mga develop countries consumes 86% of the worlds consumptions.

Your own "evidence" shows how mindless the "overpopulation" hysteria is. The problem is GREED, injustice, and bad management of resources. THAT is what you have to solve. Having fewer people won't be a lasting solution if you don't get to the ROOT CAUSES.

Population control will not solve those.

root causes - root causes ka diha. bugo man diay ka dong, bisa'g usaon nimo'g tarong sa sosyedad, kon sobra ang kadaghan sa mga tawo, maglisud ka'g sulbad sa problema!

mga higala, kini si mannyamador pwerti niyang isuga mostorya sa? grabe kay siya manginsulto. angay ana niya kulatahon. :mrgreen:



hoy mannyamador, tan-awa lang gud ang mga pamilya nga pobre nga dagha'g bata... galisud sila! ang mga datu nga tagurha'g anak, wala'y problema.

unsa kang "greed, injustice, and bad management of resources", bugua nimo uy!

sakto tong giingon sa usa. wala kay calculator. bala ka sa math.

beh ga-i mi'g solusyon oy! sigi lang ka'g yawyaw dinha!

kada solusyon nga isulti sa laing tawo imong gub-on og kontrahon, unya kay wala man kay mahatag!

[mannyamador]

The bottomline is that you don't cure a disease by attacking the symptoms.

Not a single one of you has been able to show that "overpopulation" causes poverty. None of you have been able to show a causal link. I'm still waiting for you to present REAL EVIDENCE, not your silly assumptions.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that population has nothing to do with causing poverty. There si no such thing as "bloating population." In fact, Philippine population growth has been dropping drastically, as well as its Total Fertility Rate (TFR).

But greed and injustice DO have something to do with causing poverty.

Try thinking first.

[mannyamador]

Russia Faces Demographic Disaster
http://www.mosnews.com/feature/2005/...mocrisis.shtml
Otto Latsis
Moscow News

The Levada Analytical Center asked Russians four questions: How many children should there be in an “ideal family�? How many children do you have now? How many children do you expect to have within your lifetime? How many children would you like to have if the conditions were ideal?

It turned out that the share of respondents who had a definite opinion on the subject was extremely high: only 4 percent were not sure about an ideal number of children; 7 percent about the number of children they would like to have; and 9 percent about the number of children they expected to have.

This is where the positive part of the story ends and problems begin.

Child Shortage

For example, only 6 percent of the respondents said an ideal family is a family with just one child, 50 percent said two, and 40 percent said three children and more. The average perception of an ideal family is 253 children per 100 families. The respondents are ready to have almost as many — on average 246 children per 100 families — given the right conditions. In other words, a normal family is a family with two or three children. If this was the case, Russia would have no demographic problems since simple reproduction requires an average of 215 births per 100 women throughout their lifetime, while a higher birth rate guarantees population growth. Unfortunately, the average expected number of children according to the survey is only 183 per 100 families, which is not enough even for population reproduction. The actual number of children born into the families surveyed, however, is 151.

So Russia, on average, has a “shortfall� of one child per family -- compared to both an ideal number and a desirable number -- the one child that Russia lacks to be able to feel secure and look forward, confidently, to the future. This definitely gives some food for thought.

The Crisis That Sneaked up on Russia

The Soviet authorities overlooked the demographic crisis, while the Russian authorities were confronted with it head-on within the first few years of their existence. It was also when the majority of the people also noticed it, learning that the country’s population was shrinking. Meanwhile, the average number of births had fallen below the level of simple reproduction — that is to say, below 215 children per 100 women — back in the 1960s. That was when demographers sounded the alarm, warning the ruling authorities about an imminent demographic crisis. Alas, during the stagnation era, the Politburo’s educational and cultural level was insufficient to understand the country’s demographic problems. It was not until the crisis entered an acute phase — a net population drop — that the authorities had to finally listen to the experts. By now many politicians have heard something about a demographic revolution or a demographic transition.

Demographers explain that in post-industrial society with a large urban population, a high level of education, and a well developed healthcare system, the population reproduction model is different from the older, more traditional society. The days when a woman bore 8 to 12 children with only three survivors is now history. Family planning is in, while people have as many children as they think necessary.

Some countries tried providing financial incentives to encourage births. Some paid pretty good money for each child born, but that failed to boost birth rates overall. Family plans changed only with regard to timing. That is to say, the families that planned to have only one child still had only one, except that the birth could have taken place earlier. The freedom of choice is the main achievement of modern society compared to the traditional one, and the modern woman is not going to abandon this freedom. She is ready to have as many children as she needs, while money can be made in other, easier ways.

What the State Can Do

The logical conclusion was: the state is unable to influence the birth rate. The Levada survey expanded on this conclusion.

We can see that it is absolutely valid today since both the expected and the actual number of children is less than is required for simple reproduction. Yet with certain conditions in place, the number of births could be increased. What are these conditions? When asked, “What could influence your decision to have at least one child in the foreseeable future?� 38 percent of respondents said: “Our decision will not depend on any conditions.� Some 26 percent, however, are ready to have another child if their incomes increase; 22 percent, if they are confident about the future; 20 percent, if they have better housing. 16 percent said they will have one more child if the state takes better care of families with underage children; 15 percent, if they have regular employment; 9 percent, if prices for staple goods did not grow so fast; and 8 percent, if food prices did not grow so quickly.

So, more than one-third of Russians will not respond to the state’s efforts to boost the birth rate under any circumstances, with another 9 percent unsure. More than one-half, however, are ready to think about this under certain conditions. Is it difficult to meet these conditions?

A Long Road to Happiness

Let us consider the most salient condition: a higher income. Neither sociologists nor respondents spelled out this formula in detail, but it is not difficult to estimate the range of a desirable income. In a family without any children, husband and wife each have a separate income. In a family with two children where the mother does not go to work, one wage income supports four people. In 2004, the average per-capita subsistence level was 2,376 rubles a month; the actual per-capita cash income was 6,337 rubles a month, while the average wage was 6,832 rubles a month.

The average subsistence level for four people is approximately 9,500 rubles a month, or 50 percent more than the average wage today. With the current disposable income growth rates, this difference could be covered within a space of about six years. It should be borne in mind, however, that the current income growth rate is unusually high and may not last long. It should be taken into account that the subsistence level is upwardly revised every quarter of the year. We should also remember that the subsistence level is compared not with the minimum living wage but with the average wage, while people of average means do not necessarily accept a minimum subsistence level as sufficient.

Consider that 25.5 million people have incomes below the subsistence level; their wages will have to be increased more substantially to ensure a decent level of support for their children. Finally, factor in millions of people whose incomes are higher than the subsistence level but below the average level. In short, in the best-case scenario, it will take the lifetime of a working generation (about 30 years) to meet this (income) condition alone. Yet there are also such conditions as better housing, confidence in the future, stable employment, assistance to families with children, and slower price growth. It seems that 30 years is the minimum realistic timeframe for meeting these conditions.

What will happen with the Russian population within this brief timeframe? With the current birth and mortality rates, when Russia is on the upturn of another demographic wave, the country’s population is declining by 700,000 a year. In less favorable years, this decline goes as high as 1 million. Within 30 years, the population loss will be 20 to 30 million. This is comparable to the total losses not only of Russia, but the entire Soviet Union in World War II. Perhaps there is cause for serious nation-wide discussion about getting our socio-economic priorities right. Put simply, are we fighting for what is worth fighting for?

The aforementioned makes it perfectly clear that the most vital thing for the country’s future is to raise the general living standards, address the housing problem, and provide better healthcare and education. If we look at the national budget and its line-item breakdown, however, we will see that the most important expenditure now is military spending. It has been growing the fastest at a time when we have lost the strategic adversary that we have been preparing to fight for half a century. Granted, minimum strategic capability is crucial even in these conditions, otherwise we could risk falling victim to some form of political pressure. Nevertheless, should the current socio-economic and demographic problems continue, Russia might not live to see this happen. After all, there is the experience of the Soviet Union which strengthened its defense capability until there was nothing left to defend.