 |
 |
| Reference Material |
| Will the Philippines Prove Malthus Right? By: Peter Wallace August 12, 2004 The population issue is finally being discussed. Discussion can only be healthy between intelligent adults � as long as they do discuss it intelligently and not emotionally. So let me add a few points to ponder to add to the discussion: First, let me make the main point that I think both sides can accept if they are being reasonable: The Constitution mandates separation of Church and State. There are many non-Catholics the State must also serve. And even Catholics (including the President who admitted to using the pill) who�d like advice. The State has the responsibility to provide information, assistance and access to all types of family planning. The Church, if it wishes, may advise its flock what is acceptable and what is not. But it cannot impose upon the State. If it does its leaders should be impeached for violating the constitution. The second point may be more difficult to accept, but is reasonable too: If the Church insists on its position, and gets it enforced then it should take responsibility for its decision and provide the food, clothing, education, health services for all the extra children over and above (1.2% growth would be a good benchmark) what commonsense says should be a reasonable growth rate. There are two aspects to consider, religious and economic. On the religious side no one will win. Those who think it�s God�s will to have babies without intervention by man won�t be convinced otherwise no matter what arguments are raised. (As a side point I strongly object to this group labeling themselves as �pro-life�. I am pro-life, any decent human being is. But I am not pro-indiscriminate life. I�d rather call them �Malthusiasts�. And that�s what I shall do.) In response to their religious stance they might want to think of this: It was God who said: �Go out and multiply�. When he said it, it was, if I remember rightly, through Noah who said it to the 8 people left on earth after the great flood. It wasn�t said when there were 6.4 billion. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to where it was said in the bible. And made a condition forever. If we took this to its absurd conclusion, if everyone was Catholic (as the Catholics surely want) and bred at the same rate as the Philippines (2.4%) then by the end of this century there would be 62 billion people on earth. Or 2,042 persons on every square kilometer of available land (excluding the poles and the worst of the deserts). This must be the logical conclusion of the Malthusiasts: They want everyone to be Catholic, and they want everyone to reject effective birth control (natural methods are provably not effective). I don�t see how God could ever have intended that so, again, logically, he might have said: �go out and multiply now� but he couldn�t have said �go out and multiply without thought to the consequences�. Animals procreate mindlessly. God gave man a mind to be able to think of the implications of the actions he takes. That says to me he intended us to think before we �mindlessly� produce babies. Can we bring them up in a decent environment? I cannot believe God intended that purgatory should be on earth � as it is for the poor with too many children. If artificial (i.e. methods devised by man, a man given intelligence by God to think) contraception is wrong because it interferes with God�s desire to create a new life. Then logically using any kind of artificially produced medicine to prolong life must be equally wrong. Because it�s denying God the right to join him in heaven when he wants you to. So pure Catholicism must reject all things that interfere with God�s rule over our lives. Mind you I don�t think that�s what God intended at all. It certainly wasn�t in the Christian school I went to. And I don�t think Catholics are fatalists, but this is what for those who reject artificial contraception this implies. The Church has been proven wrong (the earth isn�t flat, or the center of the universe. Issues, by the way, where the Church killed people who dared to question the accuracy of its beliefs.) a number of times before. I�d like to hope they now have the humility to recognise they could be wrong again. Life doesn�t begin until the fertilized ovary attaches to the womb lining (a scientifically established fact � like the world is round). So preventing it from doing so doesn�t destroy a life, there is no life. And I�d certainly like to hope that the stigma attached to masturbation that I grew up with is now gone. Otherwise the Church hasn�t understood human biology either. As to the economic side of it, countries with fast growing populations uplift the living standards of their people slower. A number of studies have shown that economies grow faster and the people benefit more when population growth is kept to reasonable limits. Commonsense tells you that. One of the more authoritative papers is entitled �An Econometric Model Explaining the Population-Growth-Poverty Nexus: What can we learn from the data?� by Arsenio Balisacan and Dennis Mapa that identifies a direct link between an excessive population growth rate and a lower GDP growth rate. I have not seen anything with a similar degree of academic integrity that is able to present a different view. And I challenge those who claim a fast-growing population drives an economy to give me academically rigid proof. And to name the countries where this has occurred. As to those who say it�s other factors � politics, deteriorating quality of education, corruption, inadequate infrastructure � that have led to a slower growth of the Philippines it�s true. But this doesn�t exonerate a fast population growth rate. That is one of the factors, a major one. Population growth � some Catholic countries COUNTRY ROMAN POPULATION GNP/GDP CATHOLIC GROWTH GROWTH PHILIPPINES 83% 2.5 (0.4) MEXICO 89% 2.0 (0.1) BRAZIL 80% 1.7 1.1 CHILE 89% 1.6 4.0 ARGENTINA 92% 1.4 0.7 IRELAND 92% 0.5 5.1 POLAND 95% 0.5 3.0 SPAIN 99% 0.3 2.3 ITALY 100% 0.2 1.6 The study showed, for example, that if the Philippines had matched Thailand in its population growth rate (1.7% P.A.) from 1975 to 2000, and all else kept the same, (i.e. all the weaknesses mentioned above) there would have been an increase in the GDP growth rate of 0.76% per annum. That translates into 22% cumulative growth, or an almost US$ 1000 extra ($4839 from $3971) in the purchasing power parity level of each Filipino. This was the measured direct effect of population on the economic well-being of the people. The indirect effects add another $6-700. So Filipinos could have been almost 50% richer than they are today. And with fewer and fewer people needed to support economies (machines are taking over more and more as 50% of the work previously done by workers is now being done by machines) a major change in the role of people in economies is beginning to occur. So what will you do with all these extra people? If the Church has its way, Malthus will be right. His theory of population said that man, sooner or later, universally, will run up against himself; that the population of mankind will eventually outstrip man's ability to supply himself with the necessities of life. That, if something isn�t done, and done now will be the fate of the Philippines |