Bishops want the truth? (They can't handle the truth!)

[mannyamador]

---

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth.

Oversimplification is a logical error. If we follow your stupid logic, then having ZERO people is ideal, which is insane.

You seem to forget that high population density creates MASS MARKETS, MASS PRODUCTION, and ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Your simplistic household economics doesn't hold true for entire countries. To insist that it does is a utter stupidity.

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

[nindotkanon]

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth.

Oversimplification is a logical error. If we follow your stupid logic, then having ZERO people is ideal, which is insane.

Correction: I did not say zero people, I mean you should make babies only up to where you can afford!

You seem to forget that high population density creates MASS MARKETS, MASS PRODUCTION, and ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Your simplistic household economics doesn't hold true for entire countries. To insist that it does is a utter stupidity.

Wrong interpretation! Try to go to these places, Bagong Barrio Caloocan, Tondo, even in Reclamation Area in Cebu! See those people! Is that what you mean mass markets? Mass Production? Economies of Scale?

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Not true! Australia, Canada, Belgium, New Zealand are examples of those!

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

You cannot compare these places to Philippines or other countries. If you do, you are comparing India to Makati City. It is a small place. Ha ha! I've been to China, there are hundred of millions unemployed and sleeping in parks and even outside malls. Try to go to china and you see how they wanted to get out from there country. That is why the government implemented a 1 baby per family. !!!

I can advise you to go places, travel a lot. Compare how people live in a very populous country like Philippines to less populated country New Zealand (almost the same size in area). Dont be selfish, redicule and be open minded. If you will say that even Him said, go to the world and multiply doesnt mean we have to abuse it. We dont even know if it is the people or his word!

Babu!

[nindotkanon]

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth.

Oversimplification is a logical error. If we follow your stupid logic, then having ZERO people is ideal, which is insane.

You seem to forget that high population density creates MASS MARKETS, MASS PRODUCTION, and ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Your simplistic household economics doesn't hold true for entire countries. To insist that it does is a utter stupidity.

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

One more thing! if you are calling me stupid, then you are an idiot!

[nindotkanon]

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth. If you have man y kids, make sure that you can afford to send them to school , all of them. If you have many kids, make sure that you can afford to feed them all. Not just rice but a good health food. In most populated countries, there are shortage of jobs because not so many people are retiring from their job but a lot of graduates (young people) every single year. Think about countries with less population, they are the countries that can have plenty of jobs available plus they almost have zero in poverty!

A simple logic for a simple man --- without the intricacies of global economics. You live in your own world - and how small that is!

[nindotkanon]

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth.

Oversimplification is a logical error. If we follow your stupid logic, then having ZERO people is ideal, which is insane.

You seem to forget that high population density creates MASS MARKETS, MASS PRODUCTION, and ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Your simplistic household economics doesn't hold true for entire countries. To insist that it does is a utter stupidity.

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

One thing last, siguro connected jud ka sa church noh? kay kung daghan ang inyong members, daghan pud mo collection. Nya daghan pud mo ibulsa, hmmmmm? tinuod ba? Di man mo ganahan sa 1 or 2 kids per family kay gamay ra ang donations... hmmmmmmm. peace!

[nindotkanon]

Yes it really does. If you have a family of 3, husband and wife plus kid. When you come home from work with a piece of cake on hand. Cake is only divided into 3. If you have 2 kids, cake is divided into 4. and so on and so forth.

Oversimplification is a logical error. If we follow your stupid logic, then having ZERO people is ideal, which is insane.

You seem to forget that high population density creates MASS MARKETS, MASS PRODUCTION, and ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Your simplistic household economics doesn't hold true for entire countries. To insist that it does is a utter stupidity.

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

One thing last, siguro connected jud ka sa church noh? kay kung daghan ang inyong members, daghan pud mo collection. Nya daghan pud mo ibulsa, hmmmmm? tinuod ba? Di man mo ganahan sa 1 or 2 kids per family kay gamay ra ang donations... hmmmmmmm. imagine ha kung ang population nato ron is 86 million, kung per person mo donate sa inyong church piso per week, di 86 million na per week? How much more per day? He he. peace!

[Deus]

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

And to follow you to a logical extreme, every sqaure foot of the earth should be jammed full of people, because the very existence of these people would raise the standard of living, regardless of land use and available resources.

You are ascribing to an either/or fallacy. Either population causes poverty or it must not, without considering the in between. Singapore and Hong Kong have large population densities, but also comparatively high monetary resources. China, although the most populous country in the world, also has huge reserves of natural and monetary resources, as well as a land area so large that it makes them actually have a low population density. The Philippines on the other hand, has Â*a high population density with comparatively little resources and little to no cash. The key word here is not population but RESOURCES, whether you have enough to support the people you have. You can have a population in the billions and still have growth, just as well as you can have populations in the billions and have them starve (and oddly enough, I can cite China as both examples).

Low population growth is also another problem, but I don't see anyone advocating raising these countries populations to levels where their own resources make them unfeasable. Can the netherlands support a billion people? Ten billion? You're hungry. Do you eat enough that your stomach bursts or do you eat just untill you're full?

[nindotkanon]

The bottom line is that there is simply ZERO EVIDENCE that population density causes poverty in the Philippines (or in most other countries for that matter). In fact, low population gorwth causes economic stagnation, population ageing, and other serious economic difficulties.

Look at countries with very high population densities such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Thety also have strong economies! Even China, the most populous country in the world, is now an economic powerhouse. Obviously, "overpopulation" doesn't hinder their economies. The cause of poverty is obviously to be found ELSEWHERE.

Wake up! "overpopulation" is a big lie!

And to follow you to a logical extreme, every sqaure foot of the earth should be jammed full of people, because the very existence of these people would raise the standard of living, regardless of land use and available resources.

You are ascribing to an either/or fallacy. Either population causes poverty or it must not, without considering the in between. Singapore and Hong Kong have large population densities, but also comparatively high monetary resources. China, although the most populous country in the world, also has huge reserves of natural and monetary resources, as well as a land area so large that it makes them actually have a low population density. The Philippines on the other hand, has a high population density with comparatively little resources and little to no cash. The key word here is not population but RESOURCES, whether you have enough to support the people you have. You can have a population in the billions and still have growth, just as well as you can have populations in the billions and have them starve (and oddly enough, I can cite China as both examples).

Low population growth is also another problem, but I don't see anyone advocating raising these countries populations to levels where their own resources make them unfeasable. Can the netherlands support a billion people? Ten billion? You're hungry. Do you eat enough that your stomach bursts or do you eat just untill you're full?

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. :mrgreen:

[gareb]

i am gonna lock this thread if you guys continue yammering OFF TOPIC!

consider all affected parties WARNED!

[tolstoi]

...sori wrong post