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

[Deus]

---

It's bad enough that you can't argue, do you have to show that you can't read as well? I refuted that quite easily. Your definition is just your own, with no authority to back it up. But worse, unlike M-W's yours is misleading since it can (and often does) lead people to identify the WRONG CAUSES to the problems of poverty, etc. The M-W definition makes no such error. It correctly defines overpopulation as having to be a CAUSE of poverty, etc. before one can say it exists. That is why M-W's definition is far better and is the one that gets published. Yours remains in the trashbin between someone's ears. Idiotic argument refuted.

So, how DOES "massive corruption, misplaced national priorities such as debt servicing, greed, etc." have a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP to poverty? According to Merriam-Webster that is.

And "refuted quite easily"? Riiight. Let's take a trip shall we?

1) I gave you my definition of "overpopulation". When people's needs overtake the capacity of their resources.
2) You gave your definition of overpopulation, one from Merriam-Webster (an encyclopedia, of all things), saying that overpopulation must MUST ACTUALLY BE THE MAJOR CAUSE of certain effects if "overpopulation" is to be said to exist.
3) I gave my defense, in which for the purpouses of my argument, the resources remain constant. It is the population that grows, not the resource that shrinks.
4) Your refutation, which you will do easily. Any day now.

By adding "MAJOR" by the way, you've automatically excluded any other answer, like "contributing factors" and overpopulation being one of them. That's simplistic if/or thinking, akin to "I'll listen to any other explanation, except that one".

And you take away the benefits of those factors too! So, if we follow your mindless logic, the decline in infant mortality and increase in life expectancy, since they too are "contribuiting factors", should be hindered? What madness! That is the stupidity your logic leads to. Another idiotic argument refuted.

Why yes they are, they contribute to the overall population. But since I don't actually advocate killing babies and drinking their blood, I guess I'll just have to settle for those babies never being born, through birth control and information drives. Really, want to assign me other aims now? How about harvesting old people for their organs?

First I show that the so-called new model of production you want to proclaim, which is in itself not a bad one, is not necessarily relevant. It does NOT prove the existence of overpopulation as defined in M-W. All it shows is that some some sectors are more efficient producers. But how does that show that hihg population density CAUSES poverty? I pointed that out a few posts ago.

In other words, how does recieving less money affect how much money we can have to use to support ourselves? Really, this cognitive dissonance of yours is astounding.

And I also showed that your claim that a declining TFR should not be so alarming in a bloated population makes the mistake of assuming the population is bloated, which you so far have NOT proven. I also showed that the US Census Bureau disagrees with your claim that TFR is not relevant in a large population. History also shows you're worng. Declining TFR eventually led to population decline in several countries, the articles about which I posted in this thread (and which apparently can't understand). Another idiotic argument refuted.

The US Census Bureau dissagree's with me? Where? In the fact showing a steady rise in Philippine population, despite the decline in TFR?

Here's a simple crosschecking of TFR in relation to total population and population growth:

DATEÂ* Â* Â* Â* TFRÂ* Â* Â* Â* POPULATIONÂ* Â* AMOUNT OF NEW BABIES

1950-55Â* Â* Â* 7.29Â* Â* Â* Â* 23,568,000Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* (base)
1955-60Â* Â* Â* 7.13Â* Â* Â* Â* 27,377,000Â* Â* Â* Â*3,809,000
1960-65Â* Â* Â* 6.85Â* Â* Â* Â* 31,770,000Â* Â* Â* Â*4,393,000
1965-70Â* Â* Â* 6.50Â* Â* Â* Â* 36,852,000Â* Â* Â* Â*5,082,000
1970-75Â* Â* Â* 6.00Â* Â* Â* Â* 42,071,000Â* Â* Â* Â*5,219,000
1975-80Â* Â* Â* 5.50Â* Â* Â* Â* 48,317,000Â* Â* Â* Â*6,246,000
1980-85Â* Â* Â* 4.95Â* Â* Â* Â* 54,668,000Â* Â* Â* Â*6,351,000
1985-90Â* Â* Â* 4.55Â* Â* Â* Â* 60,779,000Â* Â* Â* Â*6,111,000
1990-95Â* Â* Â* 4.14Â* Â* Â* Â* 68,595,000Â* Â* Â* Â*7,816,000
1995-00Â* Â* Â* 3.64Â* Â* Â* Â* 76,498,700Â* Â* Â* Â*7,903,000
2000-05Â* Â* Â* 3.24Â* Â* Â* Â* 85,599,000Â* Â* Â* Â*9,100,300
2005-10Â* Â* Â* 2.79Â* Â* Â* Â* 93,774,000Â* Â* Â* Â*8,175,000
2010-15Â* Â* Â* 2.33Â* Â* Â* 101,404,000Â* Â* Â* Â*7,630,000
2015-20Â* Â* Â* 2.10Â* Â* Â* 108,236,000Â* Â* Â* Â*6,832,000
2020-25Â* Â* Â* 2.10Â* Â* Â* 114,842,000Â* Â* Â* Â*6,606,000

Where is that decline in population? And why does a TFR of 2.10 have much higher growth than one at 7.29? Again, my analogy (the practical applications of which are above): A population of 10 with a TFR of 200% vs. a population of 100 with a TFR of 24%. You will also no doubt notice the lowering of population growth on 2025 and say, "Aha! See there! The population is lowering!" Compared to the spectacular rise in population to a TFR of 7.13 of 1960? And oh, look! The population still rose anyway. Please.

Besides, TFR is irrelevant anyway, as you have yet to adress the current median age. Young people take up the majority of the population now, so much that even in the next 40 years they are still economically viable. Refutation still forthcoming.

If you look at the M-W definition of "overpopulation", in theory high population density (not overpopulation; that's the conclusion you're trying to prove) CAN be, if you can prove it. But as I have shown, all you have been able to do is claim it is a "contributing factor", which makes it just like the decline in infant mortality and increased life expectancy. But that doesn't mean these "contributing factors" should also be hindered, should they?. These two, along with population growth, manufacturing, etc. are "contributing"? in some sense, but it would be idiotic to hinder them! So why should population density/population growth be singled out and placed in the "baddie" list? High population density and population growth can (and do) result in production and many other benefits to varying degrees. Another idiotic argument refuted. (yawn...)

Again, cause you haven't been noticing, they are good to an extent. Like eating is good to an extent. It would be wise to stop eating before your stomach explodes. All the things you noted have positives and negatives. Excess production doesn't equal growth, it equals inflation. Excess manufacturing doesn't lead to more jobs, it makes the process efficient leading to less jobs outside the manufacturing process. And an excess population leads to overpopulation. Since I never argued to "stop" doing these things, and indeed agree that they do have positive benefits in reasonable amounts, then idiotic argument not refuted. (yawn...)

You should focus your attention on OTHER CAUSES OF POVERTY that do NOT result in production or other benefits: corruption, greed, fiscal mismanagement, wasteful population control programs. Iinstead of spending millions on population control designed to attack "contribuiting factors" that have not even been proven to cause poverty, the effort should be on eliminating these other UNPRODUCTIVE (and immoral) causes of poverty. Or do you disagree?

No I do not. And what you have here is a fallacy that choosing one automatically excudes you from choosing both. You can be perfectly fine solving one problem while simultaneously solving the other.

Wrong again. They not only divert resources, they also do no good. Or do you somehow think that these have benefits?Â* Â*Population density and growth, on the other hand, DO have benefits -- which you have already acknowledged and the UN Population Division has pointed out -- while greed, corruption, and misplaced national priorities do not. But you seem to be quite blind to these differences. Idiotic argument refuted. (just way too easy...)

And like food, a benefit which is lost after your stomach explodes. But you seem to be quite blind to this difference. Idiotic argument refuted. (just way too easy...)

So, have you modified your position now? You now recognize "contributing factors" as contributors after all. If you change your position to "Yes, I acknowlege that the contributing factor of overpopulation contributes to poverty, but my beliefs merit that I set aside that problem and focus on the other factors that contribute to it." then I absolutely have no problems. It's commendable after all that you follow your beliefs. I DO have absolute scorn for people who continue to spread ignorance. Should you wish to accept the consequences of overpopulation because of your beliefs, then accept them and continue. Don't support your morality by disguising it as hard facts. And don't expect these pathetic arguments of yours saying overpopulation isn't a problem to be right.

Oh but you DO have a cause: to puff up your ego.
No wonder your posts lack depth. The ideas I've been offering go right over your head. Oh well...

Oooh boy. My posts "lack depth" and "ideas go right over my head". Riiight.

[mannyamador]

1) I gave you my definition of "overpopulation". When people's needs overtake the capacity of their resources.

And I proved your definition was mindless since it is misleading, leading to wrong attribution of causes. The M-W definition, however, is not misleading and more in line with what legislators are referring to when they discuss HB 3773.

3) I gave my defense, in which for the purpouses of my argument, the resources remain constant. It is the population that grows, not the resource that shrinks.

And which is idiotically irrelevant since the population growth has not been proven to cause any depletion of resources.

I wonder when you will try to really prove that overpopulation exists. This is too easy... it's boring already

Why yes they are, they contribute to the overall population. But since I don't actually advocate killing babies and drinking their blood...

Aw gee, how humane of you. Maybe if you tried thinking you'll see you wouldn't have to "settle" for anyhting since there's nothing wrong with the kind of "contribution" of decreased infant mortality, increased life expectancy, etc. and since they can affect population growth. there's nothing really wrong with the contribution of population growth as well.

So, have you modified your position now? You now recognize "contributing factors" as contributors after all.

Are you so bereft of rational faculties that you didn't get the point of the argument: argumentum ad absurdum? Ah well, since you've demonstrated that you're extremely slow in that departmemt, let me break it down for you.

Â* Â*1. You claim that population growht is a "contributing factor" top poverty and as such must be solved/minimized.
Â* Â*2. I then showed that by your definition, there are OTHER things that can therefore be classified as "contributing factors"
Â* Â*3. But then I also showed that some of these other things should NOT be minimized since they are good. But they are not all that
Â* Â* Â* different from population growth (and some in fact increase it, such as decreqsed infant mortailit, better health care, etc.)
Â* Â*4. If we follow your idiotic logic then, these too must be eliminated since they are "contributing factors." And that us absurd.
Â* Â*5. [i]Argumentum ad absurdum.[/] Your leads to absurd conclusions. You do understand that, right?
Â* Â* Â*Or am i expecting too much of you?

In other words, how does recieving less money affect how much money we can have to use to support ourselves?

Uh, first show that "receiving less money" is really caused by high population density and not something else. It's seems you still haven't got it!!! I really should start pitying you.

The US Census Bureau dissagree's with me? Where?

Please do try to read the previous posts. You will look less ignorant that way. You may prefer to be blissfully ignorant, but the rest of the intelligent world is already waking up to the dangwrs posed by dropping TFR.

Â* Â*Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels
Â* Â*http://www.lifenews.com/nat397.html

Â* Â*Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A report released Monday by the Census
Â* Â*Bureau shows that world population growth is SLOWING TO DANGEROUS
Â* Â*LEVELS. In its report, "Global Population Profile: 2002," the Census BureauÂ*
Â* Â*notes that the 74 million people added to the world's population in 2002Â*
Â* Â*were significantly fewer than the high of 87 million people added in
Â* Â*1989-1990. The growth rate was a meager 1.2 percent, down from the high of
Â* Â*2.2 percent in 1963-64.

In the fact showing a steady rise in Philippine population, despite the decline in TFR?...

Besides, TFR is irrelevant anyway, as you have yet to adress the current median age. Young people take up the majority of the population now, so much that even in the next 40 years they are still economically viable.

You DID read the part about how long it takes such factors to have effects right? Or is reading causing too much brain hurt? Were you so mentally challenged as to think that these things happen overnight. Try to use a little common sense.

Since I never argued to "stop" doing these things, and indeed agree that they do have positive benefits in reasonable amounts...

That's might sound good in theory, but you can't define "reasonable amount" unless you can PROVE that the population actually CAUSES poverty (or, at the very least is, for your sake, the MAJOR cause). You haven't so far.

No I do not. And what you have here is a fallacy that choosing one automatically excudes you from choosing both. You can be perfectly fine solving one problem while simultaneously solving the other.

And there is where your argument fails. If we follow that mindless logic, we should also choose to eliminate the other "contributing factors such as decreased infant mortality and increased life expectancy. That si the absurd conclusion that comnes from your "non-thinking".

There IS, however, a reason to eliminate corruption, etc, but NOT population growth. Corruption and greed are not productive and do not have positive effects. Population growth DOES (which I've proven and you've admitted -- please check bullethole in your foot).

Also see how these are the real causes:

Debunking the Myths of over Population (Part I)
http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control2

... food, a benefit which is lost after your stomach explodes.

Aww, gee, has your stomach ever exploded? Not likely. But your brain is another story. You seem to be clinging to the fantasy (which you have NOT yet proven) that there are too many people. Like I've been asking, PROVE that population density causes poverty and you'll have your "stomach explosions." But NOT before.


So now that I've refuted (twice over!) your pathetic attempts to sidetrack the real issue, let's get back to it.

When will you PROVE that high population density actually CAUSES poverty (or the effects cited in the definition)?

Please try to cut down on the excuses not to.

[iloveyou4ever]

1) I gave you my definition of "overpopulation". When people's needs overtake the capacity of their resources.

And I proved your definition was mindless since it is misleading, leading to wrong attribution of causes. The M-W definition, however, is not misleading and more in line with what legislators are referring to when they discuss HB 3773.

3) I gave my defense, in which for the purpouses of my argument, the resources remain constant. It is the population that grows, not the resource that shrinks.

And which is idiotically irrelevant since the population growth has not been proven to cause any depletion of resources.

I wonder when you will try to really prove that overpopulation exists. This is too easy... it's boring already

Why yes they are, they contribute to the overall population. But since I don't actually advocate killing babies and drinking their blood...

Aw gee, how humane of you. Maybe if you tried thinking you'll see you wouldn't have to "settle" for anyhting since there's nothing wrong with the kind of "contribution" of decreased infant mortality, increased life expectancy, etc. and since they can affect population growth. there's nothing really wrong with the contribution of population growth as well.

So, have you modified your position now? You now recognize "contributing factors" as contributors after all.

Are you so bereft of rational faculties that you didn't get the point of the argument: argumentum ad absurdum? Ah well, since you've demonstrated that you're extremely slow in that departmemt, let me break it down for you.

1. You claim that population growht is a "contributing factor" top poverty and as such must be solved/minimized.
2. I then showed that by your definition, there are OTHER things that can therefore be classified as "contributing factors"
3. But then I also showed that some of these other things should NOT be minimized since they are good. But they are not all that
different from population growth (and some in fact increase it, such as decreqsed infant mortailit, better health care, etc.)
4. If we follow your idiotic logic then, these too must be eliminated since they are "contributing factors." And that us absurd.
5. [i]Argumentum ad absurdum.[/] Your leads to absurd conclusions. You do understand that, right?
Or am i expecting too much of you?

In other words, how does recieving less money affect how much money we can have to use to support ourselves?

Uh, first show that "receiving less money" is really caused by high population density and not something else. It's seems you still haven't got it!!! I really should start pitying you.

The US Census Bureau dissagree's with me? Where?

Please do try to read the previous posts. You will look less ignorant that way. You may prefer to be blissfully ignorant, but the rest of the intelligent world is already waking up to the dangwrs posed by dropping TFR.

Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels
http://www.lifenews.com/nat397.html

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A report released Monday by the Census
Bureau shows that world population growth is SLOWING TO DANGEROUS
LEVELS. In its report, "Global Population Profile: 2002," the Census Bureau
notes that the 74 million people added to the world's population in 2002
were significantly fewer than the high of 87 million people added in
1989-1990. The growth rate was a meager 1.2 percent, down from the high of
2.2 percent in 1963-64.

In the fact showing a steady rise in Philippine population, despite the decline in TFR?...

Besides, TFR is irrelevant anyway, as you have yet to adress the current median age. Young people take up the majority of the population now, so much that even in the next 40 years they are still economically viable.

You DID read the part about how long it takes such factors to have effects right? Or is reading causing too much brain hurt? Were you so mentally challenged as to think that these things happen overnight. Try to use a little common sense.

Since I never argued to "stop" doing these things, and indeed agree that they do have positive benefits in reasonable amounts...

That's might sound good in theory, but you can't define "reasonable amount" unless you can PROVE that the population actually CAUSES poverty (or, at the very least is, for your sake, the MAJOR cause). You haven't so far.

No I do not. And what you have here is a fallacy that choosing one automatically excudes you from choosing both. You can be perfectly fine solving one problem while simultaneously solving the other.

And there is where your argument fails. If we follow that mindless logic, we should also choose to eliminate the other "contributing factors such as decreased infant mortality and increased life expectancy. That si the absurd conclusion that comnes from your "non-thinking".

There IS, however, a reason to eliminate corruption, etc, but NOT population growth. Corruption and greed are not productive and do not have positive effects. Population growth DOES (which I've proven and you've admitted -- please check bullethole in your foot).

Also see how these are the real causes:

Debunking the Myths of over Population (Part I)
http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control2

... food, a benefit which is lost after your stomach explodes.

Aww, gee, has your stomach ever exploded? Not likely. But your brain is another story. You seem to be clinging to the fantasy (which you have NOT yet proven) that there are too many people. Like I've been asking, PROVE that population density causes poverty and you'll have your "stomach explosions." But NOT before.


So now that I've refuted (twice over!) your pathetic attempts to sidetrack the real issue, let's get back to it.

When will you PROVE that high population density actually CAUSES poverty (or the effects cited in the definition)?

Please try to cut down on the excuses not to.

sir Im asking you if you eat balot or pinoy balot?

[mannyamador]

sir Im asking you if you eat balot or pinoy balot?

I don't eat either.

[iloveyou4ever]

sir Im asking you if you eat balot or pinoy balot?

I don't eat either.

thanks. so you really are pro life! :mrgreen:

[mannyamador]

So, how DOES "massive corruption, misplaced national priorities such as debt servicing, greed, etc." have a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP to poverty? According to Merriam-Webster that is.

You'd have to look at the evidence...

The Overpopulation Myth

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

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

The US-based National Center for Policy Analysis also had a smiliar view in "Overpopulation Myths" (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdint21.html) where it noted that:

Â* Â*"It is not a question of the human population outstripping resources,
Â* Â*since food production continues to exceed population growth and
Â* Â*non-renewable resources become more plentiful each year as new
Â* Â*sources are found."

A recent paper released by members of the University of Asia and the Pacific School of Economics (whose members included Emilio T. Antonio, Ronilo Balbieran, Enrico Basilio, Jovi Dacanay, Roberto de Vera, Stephen Huang, Maia Tyche King, Winston Stan Padojinog, Cherrylyn Rodolfo, Kimberly San Agustin, Leandro Tan, Cid Terosa, Peter Lee U, and Bernardo M. Villegas) stated flatly that there is no real connection between poverty and "overpopulation":

Â* Â*"... we find that available statistics and scientific studies do not support the claim that "too many people"
Â* Â*means "more poor people."

Â* Â*Bad governance and bad economic policies, not a large, fast-growing population, are the real causes of
Â* Â*poverty. More specifically, we have found that:

Â* Â* Â* * Poverty remains unaffected or even decreases in a larger or increasing
population. Population growth has little or no direct effect on per capita GDP growth.
Â* Â* Â* Thus, there is no basis for a policy that aims to reduce population growth to raise per
Â* Â* Â* capita GDP growth.[/list:u]

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* *Poverty is usually caused by poor governance and inappropriate and badly
implemented economic policies -- which leads to corruption, poor tax collections,
lack of education and roads, lack of irrigation systems -- instead of a large and
increasing population."
Â* Â* Â*. . .

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.

[Deus]

And I proved your definition was mindless since it is misleading, leading to wrong attribution of causes. The M-W definition, however, is not misleading and more in line with what legislators are referring to when they discuss HB 3773.

And to that I gave my defense. You're supposed to defend these things. You know, in case you forgot.

And which is idiotically irrelevant since the population growth has not been proven to cause any depletion of resources.

I wonder when you will try to really prove that overpopulation exists. This is too easy... it's boring already

Lessee... A large population doesn't consume a large amount of resources?Â*More people don't consume more resources? And resources aren't limited? Please. You have yet to refute my crosschecking of Philippine population trends BTW. You're right, it IS getting boring, but not for the reasons you think.

Aw gee, how humane of you. Maybe if you tried thinking you'll see you wouldn't have to "settle" for anyhting since there's nothing wrong with the kind of "contribution" of decreased infant mortality, increased life expectancy, etc. and since they can affect population growth. there's nothing really wrong with the contribution of population growth as well.

Yeah there's nothing wrong with it, the same way there is nothing wrong with owning private property. I can assure you somebody out there desperately needed the food you ate this morning, the clothes you're wearing, the electricity you're using to power the computer you're reading this is in. Somebody's probably dying right now. There's nothing wrong with holding private property, but it kills nonetheless. People "settle" for a great number of things. We acknowledge the good they do, but also recognize the harm they cause.

Besides, you diddn't notice your little logical inconsistency there? A+B+C=D. A & B are good. C is not. Therefore D is also good. Please DO try to think about these things more.

Are you so bereft of rational faculties that you didn't get the point of the argument: argumentum ad absurdum? Ah well, since you've demonstrated that you're extremely slow in that departmemt, let me break it down for you.

Â* Â*1. You claim that population growht is a "contributing factor" top poverty and as such must be solved/minimized.
Â* Â*2. I then showed that by your definition, there are OTHER things that can therefore be classified as "contributing factors"
Â* Â*3. But then I also showed that some of these other things should NOT be minimized since they are good. But they are not all that
Â* Â* Â* different from population growth (and some in fact increase it, such as decreqsed infant mortailit, better health care, etc.)
Â* Â*4. If we follow your idiotic logic then, these too must be eliminated since they are "contributing factors." And that us absurd.
Â* Â*5. Argumentum ad absurdum.[/] Your leads to absurd conclusions. You do understand that, right?
Â* Â* Â*Or am i expecting too much of you?

You silly little man, do you even know what Argumentum ad Absurdum means? True, it is refuting another's argument by leading it to absurd conclusions, but only within the parameters of their given argument. Thus, me positing that's it's good (according to you) to cram people into every square foot of the earth is a valid Argumentum ad Absurdum, while you pathetically attempting to paint me as against raising the quality of life isn't, as I've repeatedly stated that population rise is not universally negative. Raising the quality of life would fall into this categogy, despite it's obvious addition to an overall problem. To put it simply for you, my arguments have bookends while yours do not. Either extreme is completely against my argument, while yours (in your contention that rising populations do not cause overpopulation) has the glaring hole that it CAN be raised to an extreme. I'd laugh at you, but then it's just too sad.

Uh, first show that "receiving less money" is really caused by high population density and not something else. It's seems you still haven't got it!!! I really should start pitying you.

"High population density"? Aren't you the clever sort. Cause I never claimed that "high population density" was a cause of recieving less money at all. I have repeatedly stated that population or population density doesn't matter. What DOES matter is available resources and how it is allocated to the population, and how this population produces money in relative to the resources allocated to it. Was this because you weren't reading my posts perhaps? Or maybe more of that cognitive dissonance again?

Please do try to read the previous posts. You will look less ignorant that way. You may prefer to be blissfully ignorant, but the rest of the intelligent world is already waking up to the dangwrs posed by dropping TFR.

Â* Â*Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels
Â* Â*http://www.lifenews.com/nat397.html

Lifenews? I give you pure numbers and you give me an article from Lifenews!? A written article (which from it's very nature expresses the sentiments of it's writer) from a biased site with an obvious cause? And "dangerous levels"? Did the US Census Bureau say that? Did it issue a press release? Or did Lifenews itself interpret the data incorrectly (like you did), with the census bureau showing a decrease in total fertility and them screaming their heads off, saying population's decreasing, while ignoring the relative rise in population regardless of TFR? Really, giving a written article in response to numbers is a response that's beyond silly, it's stupid.

You DID read the part about how long it takes such factors to have effects right? Or is reading causing too much brain hurt? Were you so mentally challenged as to think that these things happen overnight. Try to use a little common sense.

You DID read the part about our current median age? Even if ALL OF US decided to not have any babies anymore for the next 40 years (which is not even my aim, just a position taken to an extreme), we would still be within a working population age at the end of that time. Oh, you diddn't? Typical.

That's might sound good in theory, but you can't define "reasonable amount" unless you can PROVE that the population actually CAUSES poverty (or, at the very least is, for your sake, the MAJOR cause). You haven't so far.

In other words, "La la la la la la, YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!" Riiight.

And there is where your argument fails. If we follow that mindless logic, we should also choose to eliminate the other "contributing factors such as decreased infant mortality and increased life expectancy. That si the absurd conclusion that comnes from your "non-thinking".

There IS, however, a reason to eliminate corruption, etc, but NOT population growth. Corruption and greed are not productive and do not have positive effects. Population growth DOES (which I've proven and you've admitted -- please check bullethole in your foot).

Also see how these are the real causes:

Â* Â*Debunking the Myths of over Population (Part I)
Â* Â*http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/population_control2

Mindless logic? Argumentum ad Absurdum? See above. And something you've proven? Bulletholes in my foot, even in something I've freely and purpousfully made astonishingly clear myself? My my, isn't that changing history now? Dishonesty indeed.

As to the "other causes", I agree to them all, except to the debt servicing part. (Yeah, I hate it too, but what? You won't pay your debts?) as well as family planning misappropriation. Add in overpopulation. And as for page two? Wow, it's a conspiracy, deep and far reaching in it's consequences! A battle for the VERY FATE OF THE WORLD! Wow. Just... wow.

Aww, gee, has your stomach ever exploded? Not likely. But your brain is another story. You seem to be clinging to the fantasy (which you have NOT yet proven) that there are too many people. Like I've been asking, PROVE that population density causes poverty and you'll have your "stomach explosions." But NOT before.

An exploding stomach? Why, yes it can! Although the stomach would actually more like rip and tear and hemmorage from the inside due to overeating. And oh, there have been cases of expanding gas from foodstuffs actually blowing up the stomach walls. Not so sure about brains though, maybe if it were hollow. Yours might qualify.

I will say again, "Population Density" is not my issue. I don't give a crap about Population Density. What I DO care about is available resources being able to provide for a population. Any population, NO MATTER WHAT DENSITY OR SIZE - just as long as you have the resources to support them. If you had a magic machine that created food and and raw materials out of nothing, then no doubt it will be good to cram people into every square foot of the earth. But since resources are actually limited, then populations themselves would be limited.

So now that I've refuted (many times over!) your pathetic attempts to sidetrack the real issue, let's get back to it.

When will you actually adress my posts?

Please try to cut down on the excuses not to.

[migzz]

hehehe... my concern is the environment and the animal species... too many people occupying the land... displacing nature... leads to ecological disaster... which then leads to limited resources... poverty... tsk!

[Deus]

The Overpopulation Myth

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

And again, I'm not discounting plenty for the rest of the world. The world actually has enough resources to divide amongst everyone. Equitable distribution of wealth, fairness, charity - The first world has in it's disposal enough resources to provide, feed and care for the entire third world. If people would only hold hands and work together, everyone would get along. Absolutely and completely true. But I'm not holding my breath on that happening.

The US-based National Center for Policy Analysis also had a smiliar view in "Overpopulation Myths" (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdint21.html) where it noted that:

Quite true. It's actually it's quite impossible to completely deplete nonrenewable resources like oil at current usage levels. More nonrenewable resource sources are being found. But the article doesn't really explain what kind of sources they are. There are actually several kinds of oil sources, ranging from oil bubbling from the ground (which is simply collected on site) to ones refined from shale and other sources (which, although currently untapped and plentiful, are much harder and more expensive to collect). The issue isn't scarcity but effort required, and prices derived from such effort - The practical effects of which are high prices indistinguishable from the effects of scarcity. In other words we aren't using up all the oil, we're just using up the easy oil. We can use the hard oil anytime we like, but damn will it be expensive.

Poverty remains unaffected or even decreases in a larger or increasing
Â* Â* Â*population. Population growth has little or no direct effect on per capita GDP growth.

Gross profit (which is what GDP is) vs. net profit. I believe I discussed it. And did poverty decrease in response to a higher population or did a population increase due to increased growth? Cause if it's the latter then it's a wise use of resources, which is what I've been advocating.

Poverty is usually caused by poor governance and inappropriate and badly
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*implemented economic policies -- which leads to corruption, poor tax collections,
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*lack of education and roads, lack of irrigation systems -- instead of a large and
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*increasing population."

True, and "a large and increasing population" is not my concern.

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.

Which again, you take history into consideration.

America - Self sufficient level of natural resources, huge amounts of land, low population density.
England - Had ridiculously large amounts of monetary resources to begin with due to colonialization. Took early advantage of industrialization (in a time when it mattered). Industrialization by the way, had the distressing side-effect of low wages and horrible working conditions. Use it if you must.
Hongkong - Former British colony, benefiting from infrastructure set up by people interested in money, money making infrastructure which was set up for it essentially free until fairly recently. Had regular trade relations with China and the west via Britain, both of which can make you rich just by looking at you.
The Netherlands - Low population density. Population problems. Much richer than the Philippines.

The last one serves to undermine your post. Depopulation may lead them to their doom, but they sure aren't poor because of it.

[scrotty69]

try working in a government hospital setting.i.e.VSMMC,CCMC.......

ask pregnant patients how many children they have, and ask what r their means of living/ livelihood, ask how they can support their children's needs........

then u willÂ* see how sgnificant this bill is....

coz, iv been working here in VSMMC as a staff nurse for 3years, and i say this bill is very sgnificant......