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

[nindotkanon]

---

RESOURCES? Not true! Philippines is rich in resources naturally. We have plenty of beaches, land for farming (specifically Mindanao and Baguio), etc etc.

Why Singapore and Hongkong are rich? Because they accepted western ideas which Thailand is being practice now. Japan, they were defeated in the WW2, they accepted western ideas. Thats how those countries become rich. China is now practising 1 child per couple. They finally realised this thing after all. Way back to Singapore and Hongkong, both countries are not rich in resources. Philippines, we have plenty.

Filipinos practice western ideas when they go to west but they become filipinos (ideas) again when they come home. Like pee on the wall, spit eveywhere, garbage everywhere, jay walking, traffic violations, mañana habit etc etc.

Thanks.

Sorry, but no. They just tell us that in social studies to increase national pride (like Juan Luna actually winning a prize worth winning for "Spolarium", or being the first asian nation to launch a successful revolution via Lapu Lapu). It's a crock. Beaches aren't a resource, no matter how beautiful they are. Tourism is - but ours is mediocre at best. We currently import our rice (land resources are irrelevant if you don't have the monetary resources to develop). We've got nickel and some copper, and that's about it. What we do have is a resource in common with Singapore and Hong Kong: social capital, a competent and educated workforce. THAT is how Singapore and Hong Kong got rich. Invest in it's people. Successful people make successful companies, which MAKE money for the country.

Unfortunately unlike the two, we seem to be going by quantity over quality. We take care of all our people, but in doing so we spend less on each one. So we produce an educated populace which is nonetheless inferior to the educated populations of Singapore and Hong Kong. Since social capital is competetive (and not being in a closed system, we can look outside the country for jobs) these better educated Singaporeans will be favored by companies for better jobs, better pay, and better opportunities to invest that money in, or apply their newfound skills back in their own country. We on the other hand, are educated just enough for manning cash registers, flipping burgers and taking care of babies as OFW's.

Now surely, a high population's got it's benefits? Sure! We can sell our work cheap and outbid those Singaporeans! Cheap labor attracts foreign investment too! Now, assuming we don't mind basing our economy on a model that has to us no chance of skills advancement or exponential growth (cheap labor only producing money now, instead of skilled people producing more money later), we're still not beating China, which has the resources to have both huge numbers of unskilled, extremely cheap labor and a sizable educated population.

The model's simple, and really is the only way those countries remain afloat.

bro tama na bro. korek na mo. di mo pa pildi kay di mo ka accept sa reality. youre both living in your own world. go ahead, magpadaghan ka ug anak hangtod mapuno ang imong house. kay opportunista man mo and you see an opportunity sa future born child sige na go ahead. babay! shut up na ni nga thread.

[Deus]

Err, hello? I agree with you on Philippine overpopulation. You diddn't understand that post right, did you?

[migzz]

wahahaha... damn it...u guys are funny... uve locked someones thread...

Philippines is overpopulated... Hong Kong and Singapore are Developed countries... they were not densely populated when they were still developing. at present u can still see how vulnerable they are, coz of dense population... one drop of SARS made hong kong and singapore (at least a couple yrs) tumbling down. as of china... pls to go to china before u can make them as an example of your no-overpopulation-issue. if u can understand... china sell very cheap items... coz they have a lot of hungry people that sacrificed themselves even with a very little salary, zero health benefits, dirty drinking water, poor housing, polluted air, diseases... etc. prove it that its not overpopulation related.

[mannyamador]

The rise in monetary resources exeeds the rise in population.

That does not support your thesis that the rise in monetary resources was had by balancing resources.

Again I will ask, will it be good for a population to grow beyond it's resource capacity? Or alternatively, will it be good to cram people into every square foot of the earth?

Again I will ask, are eithe rof those even remotely possible? Kindly show me any point in isotry where the world population outstripped its resources. In fact, show me any point in history where the Philippine population outatripped its resourcs and crammed people into every square foot.

So, you won't answer it then?

You mean, will I agree with a platitude (so general that it is really meaningless)? What for?

I defined it by positing that the Netherlands support a billion people. The fact that people grow and reproduce show that we can.

Wrong. That does not mean we can outstrip resources at all. You must show the numbers and show how these can be reached. You haven't. Can the population of the Netherlands reach a BILLION people? Don't hold your breath! We'll have people living in the next solar system by then!

And overpopulation is a REALITY in many countries as well.

Which ones? I challenge you to show that it is in the Philippines. So far, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that it does.

BTW, Japan, America, Eurupe. You keep stating these as examples when it's quite obvious they aren't similar. Continuing to do so would be at best ignorant, and at worst, blatantly dishonest.

Such countries are used as examples by the the PRO-population control gang to support their claims (but fail). So citing them to show otherwise is just as valid.

[mannyamador]

Hong Kong and Singapore are Developed countries... they were not densely populated when they were still developing.

Yes they were. You make claims without even checking your history!

I'm still waiting for you to present any real evidence. And try not to post some cute but totally silly picture of lights again (which was used to disprove your point, by the way).

[mannyamador]

Err, hello? I agree with you on Philippine overpopulation. You diddn't understand that post right, did you?

[Deus]

That does not support your thesis that the rise in monetary resources was had by balancing resources.

Sure it does. They used the money just enough to support the population without straining resources. Then when this population made more money, they used it just enough to expand the population without straining resources. Then when this population made more money...

Again I will ask, are eithe rof those even remotely possible? Kindly show me any point in isotry where the world population outstripped its resources. In fact, show me any point in history where the Philippine population outatripped its resourcs and crammed people into every square foot.

Examples were given and you have kindly managed to ignore them. So, you admit it's not good to cram people into every square foot of the earth?

Wrong. That does not mean we can outstrip resources at all. You must show the numbers and show how these can be reached. You haven't. Can the population of the Netherlands reach a BILLION people? Don't hold your breath! We'll have people living in the next solar system by then!

So now you've been reduced to hopes of living in the next solar system. Nonetheless, should this population rise to a billion people, I take it that is acceptable for you.

Which ones? I challenge you to show that it is in the Philippines. So far, you haven't provided a shred of evidence that it does.

A detective doesn't have the entire evidence, he finds pieces of evidence, makes conjectures and derives the evidence from there. The Philippines has little resources and too many people. To make up for this lack of resources, we expend monetary resources depleting the little we have. When the monetary resources become insufficient, we borrow. This is in contrast to our neighbors, who do not completely deplete monetary resources on basic needs and thus have surplus for advanced growth. You put pieces of evidence together and get the entire picture.

Such countries are used as examples by the the PRO-population control gang to support their claims (but fail). So citing them to show otherwise is just as valid.

No, two wrongs don't make a right. Their claims are wrong, and so are yours. You don't get a pass by whining, "but look, their doing it too!"

[mannyamador]

They used the money just enough to support the population without straining resources.

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

The evidence, however, points to something the other way around. The population density allowed markets and mass production.

Examples were given and you have kindly managed to ignore them.

Not a single example was given to show that overpopulation in the Philippines exists. You're making things up now.

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.

The Philippines has little resources and 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.

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):

: the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental
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.

You put pieces of evidence together and get the entire picture.

In other words, YOU DON'T have proof. Thanks

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 prolife/population discussions. I have tried more than 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.

[jnex]

I agree with Deus....proof is i'm the youngest and 13th child of the family...Nabubuhay kami na parang hindi tao (Malnaurish, nakatira sa tahanan ng mga di tao, discrimination etc...etc..) I really hate my parents coz they donnot have simple arithmetic planning how they manage having big family while the income working in the farm cannot support even the simple basic needs...nilayas ko nangamo..pasalamat ko nga nakaswerte gipa-eskwela ko sa akong amo...and now i can able to operate computer...may mga kapatid din akong pinamigay at pinagtrabaho sa ibang may kaya pamilya...so sad but thats the truth...I promised to my self NOT to live that life again....I SUPPORT POPULATION CONTROL.....

[bfg9000]

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

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!"?

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