 |
| Money isn't everything ... especially when the odds are stacked against you. |
Do you remember your life ten years ago? You know, the days when life seems less complicated? Premium rice cost just above twenty pesos. A fully dressed chicken is charged at less than 90 pesos. Neither premium gasoline nor diesel reached 20 pesos a litre. Electric and water consumption bills were not much of a headache. And you can watch your favourite movie for only 50 pesos.
Well, those days are a distant memory. All you can hear nowadays are screams of pain and suffering from almost everyone, who has tightened their belts so hard they can barely breathe. The public transportation sector has launched a handful of transport holidays (and hundreds of really non-existent ones) as a protest to the never-ending oil price hikes. The increasing “shortage” of immediately available energy resources has been cited as the reason behind the increase in prices of electric and water consumption. A similar situation, as well as climate change, also applies to the near-skyrocketing of prices of food items. And since those monthly paychecks never fully support a worker’s family, the net result of all of these (and other factors) is that more than 5 million Pilipino families or 25 million Pilipinos, or more than 25% of the population consider themselves poor.
For years, the government has struggled to find a way to at least relief some of our poor countrymen. It has provided subsidies to rice and electricity consumption, among other goods, but this is only a short-term solution. It has tried endless job openings, but most of these jobs are also for a brief period of time. Besides, with a lack of teachers, doctors, and other professionals willing to work in the Philippines, job vacancies are not really hard to fill with the right combination of training and mindset of the worker, which is easier said than done, of course. Right now, it is trying to send as many Pilipinos abroad to insert more money into circulation, which could boost the Philippine economy, but the recent cases of trauma and tragedy suggests that this is not the best solution, either.
If everyone is looking for the best solution, this sounds cheesy but solving this problem starts with us. Really.
It is simple. Control the increase, if not start a slight decrease in population.
Now, before anything else, I would like to explain why a controlled increase in population will ultimately benefit us in the long run. Before humans began “dominating” the planet, almost all of the vital resources in the Earth such as water regenerate in a pace that is around the same as their consumption by the living species at the time. That changed when the human race began taking over. As our endless pursuit of knowledge and improving the quality of life raged on the past few centuries, the rate of consumption became higher than the rate of generation of resources. It doesn’t matter how huge the difference of the two rates is; these small differences will compound over time, and right now, we are almost desperate to find new sources of supplies of energy, food, potable water, and other resources. And because the population is still increasing at a big rate, these possible shortages will become inflated, and everyone will suffer.
With the increase in population and the consumption of resources also comes the increase in the “side effects” of the processes we utilize to fully take advantage of the resources, including the release of alarming amounts of greenhouse gases and unwanted particles into the atmosphere, as well as the fields and the oceans. Consequently, the natural cycles in the world will be disrupted, and now these “side effects” are being observed. You know, climate change.
In short, overpopulation is like a big blue-green drum, continuously supplied with water until the water overflows and the drum leaks or explodes. The more the people, the faster the consumption of goods, the lesser the resources, and the more dangerous the world will be.
But is overpopulation the real problem? Or the allocation of resources?
People have been intensely debating about this since all sorts of trouble began showing up, as early as the Industrial Revolution. The ones who point that the distribution of resources is the issue that needs to be solved argue that there really is no shortage of resources; most of the natural and artificial resources are concentrated on a small percentage of the population. They point out that because they have the comfort of having an abundance or constant supply of said goods, they will have the tendency to be wasteful and unappreciative of the things they have. They will also be indifferent to the plight of others; hence contributing to the inflation rates that everyone wishes to stop. This certain sector of society also has considerable influence on the government, leading to widespread graft and corruption. As proof, these people cite the recent discovery of an abundance of supply of rice in the warehouses of NFA despite the prevailing belief at the time that there was a shortage of rice. Instead, they (usually) propose that the systems of business and government should be made more efficient and that the resources be exploited to the fullest as solutions to the demand of the populace.
While those statements may be true, these people do not see the big picture. First of all, the potential shortages of resources in the near future are no laughing matter. See, the problem with a lot of us is that we only think short-term, never long-term. We tend to act like the grasshopper, not the ant. Take everything for granted. When we lose everything, we finally regret our actions and struggle to survive. While we have the time now, why don’t we start focusing more on finding more efficient ways of living? Current developments such as eco-friendly homes and cars and alternate sources of energy are a good start, but with the power of six billion human minds, I am sure we can develop more ways of living life to the fullest while not compromising the environment. Also, I believe that the Bible (which a majority of the Pilipinos believe) tells us that God gave man the Earth as his dominion to show us not only His love, but also the trust that He gives us, knowing that we can be responsible for taking care of the things He created, such as “the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground” (Genesis 1:26). So by overexploiting our resources due to the intense demand caused by overpopulation, we are certainly disobeying God’s will. Instead of us making the environment adjust to our needs (and we have seen the not-so-good results), can we start adapting more to the environment? Sacrifice is something not everyone is willing to do, but it is something everyone can do.
And how do we do it? Simply by refusing to have a large family … if you are planning to have one.
Of course, this cannot be accomplished without the people fully behind the effort. We need every single one of us to cooperate. And contrary to popular belief, the Church is NOT against population control. In fact, “the Church does not forbid the advocacy of the acceleration or deceleration of our population growth, according to circumstances, provided this is achieved within the parameters of freedom of conscience, the responsible decision of couples, and the principles of sexual and family morality”. Besides, what I believe is the true meaning of pro-life is not just letting a human being live; it also means that the life that every human being will live will be (at least materialistically) less difficult and as a result, probably more (spiritually) fulfilling.
So what is really hindering us from doing such a move? Simple answer: awareness and knowledge of the situation. If we can convince more people to become more responsible parents (or future parents), then the situation within a few years may not be as bad as we think it would be. It could be accomplished through thorough education via means such as information campaigns through various media, more emphasis on the relationship between the demand-supply system and the environment in schools, and support from the family. Again, this will only work if everyone is willing to do their part.
To summarize, how does reducing the increase of population, or reducing the population itself going to solve our problems? Well, here’s how it works:
By reducing the increase in population or reducing the population itself, the demand for all the resources will steadily decrease, which allows the said resources to regenerate faster than their current levels and, probably, back to their pre-Industrial-Revolution rates. The small increments in resources every year will add up and, if continued over time, will give us a comfortable surplus of resources. With more goods, the ratio of these per person will be better theoretically, and more people will be relatively rich. With lesser demand for goods, there will be more surplus of goods, and the prices of commodities will be lower. With lesser demand, we will not exploit our natural resources as much, helping them regenerate faster. The effects of global warming and pollution will be less evident, and slowly but surely, we can help stabilize the weather patterns, if not reverse them back to less hazardous ones. Overall, the world will be a better place than it is now.
Less mouths to feed, less room for greed. Theoretically.
Well, those days are a distant memory. All you can hear nowadays are screams of pain and suffering from almost everyone, who has tightened their belts so hard they can barely breathe. The public transportation sector has launched a handful of transport holidays (and hundreds of really non-existent ones) as a protest to the never-ending oil price hikes. The increasing “shortage” of immediately available energy resources has been cited as the reason behind the increase in prices of electric and water consumption. A similar situation, as well as climate change, also applies to the near-skyrocketing of prices of food items. And since those monthly paychecks never fully support a worker’s family, the net result of all of these (and other factors) is that more than 5 million Pilipino families or 25 million Pilipinos, or more than 25% of the population consider themselves poor.
For years, the government has struggled to find a way to at least relief some of our poor countrymen. It has provided subsidies to rice and electricity consumption, among other goods, but this is only a short-term solution. It has tried endless job openings, but most of these jobs are also for a brief period of time. Besides, with a lack of teachers, doctors, and other professionals willing to work in the Philippines, job vacancies are not really hard to fill with the right combination of training and mindset of the worker, which is easier said than done, of course. Right now, it is trying to send as many Pilipinos abroad to insert more money into circulation, which could boost the Philippine economy, but the recent cases of trauma and tragedy suggests that this is not the best solution, either.
If everyone is looking for the best solution, this sounds cheesy but solving this problem starts with us. Really.
It is simple. Control the increase, if not start a slight decrease in population.
Now, before anything else, I would like to explain why a controlled increase in population will ultimately benefit us in the long run. Before humans began “dominating” the planet, almost all of the vital resources in the Earth such as water regenerate in a pace that is around the same as their consumption by the living species at the time. That changed when the human race began taking over. As our endless pursuit of knowledge and improving the quality of life raged on the past few centuries, the rate of consumption became higher than the rate of generation of resources. It doesn’t matter how huge the difference of the two rates is; these small differences will compound over time, and right now, we are almost desperate to find new sources of supplies of energy, food, potable water, and other resources. And because the population is still increasing at a big rate, these possible shortages will become inflated, and everyone will suffer.
With the increase in population and the consumption of resources also comes the increase in the “side effects” of the processes we utilize to fully take advantage of the resources, including the release of alarming amounts of greenhouse gases and unwanted particles into the atmosphere, as well as the fields and the oceans. Consequently, the natural cycles in the world will be disrupted, and now these “side effects” are being observed. You know, climate change.
In short, overpopulation is like a big blue-green drum, continuously supplied with water until the water overflows and the drum leaks or explodes. The more the people, the faster the consumption of goods, the lesser the resources, and the more dangerous the world will be.
But is overpopulation the real problem? Or the allocation of resources?
People have been intensely debating about this since all sorts of trouble began showing up, as early as the Industrial Revolution. The ones who point that the distribution of resources is the issue that needs to be solved argue that there really is no shortage of resources; most of the natural and artificial resources are concentrated on a small percentage of the population. They point out that because they have the comfort of having an abundance or constant supply of said goods, they will have the tendency to be wasteful and unappreciative of the things they have. They will also be indifferent to the plight of others; hence contributing to the inflation rates that everyone wishes to stop. This certain sector of society also has considerable influence on the government, leading to widespread graft and corruption. As proof, these people cite the recent discovery of an abundance of supply of rice in the warehouses of NFA despite the prevailing belief at the time that there was a shortage of rice. Instead, they (usually) propose that the systems of business and government should be made more efficient and that the resources be exploited to the fullest as solutions to the demand of the populace.
While those statements may be true, these people do not see the big picture. First of all, the potential shortages of resources in the near future are no laughing matter. See, the problem with a lot of us is that we only think short-term, never long-term. We tend to act like the grasshopper, not the ant. Take everything for granted. When we lose everything, we finally regret our actions and struggle to survive. While we have the time now, why don’t we start focusing more on finding more efficient ways of living? Current developments such as eco-friendly homes and cars and alternate sources of energy are a good start, but with the power of six billion human minds, I am sure we can develop more ways of living life to the fullest while not compromising the environment. Also, I believe that the Bible (which a majority of the Pilipinos believe) tells us that God gave man the Earth as his dominion to show us not only His love, but also the trust that He gives us, knowing that we can be responsible for taking care of the things He created, such as “the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground” (Genesis 1:26). So by overexploiting our resources due to the intense demand caused by overpopulation, we are certainly disobeying God’s will. Instead of us making the environment adjust to our needs (and we have seen the not-so-good results), can we start adapting more to the environment? Sacrifice is something not everyone is willing to do, but it is something everyone can do.
And how do we do it? Simply by refusing to have a large family … if you are planning to have one.
Of course, this cannot be accomplished without the people fully behind the effort. We need every single one of us to cooperate. And contrary to popular belief, the Church is NOT against population control. In fact, “the Church does not forbid the advocacy of the acceleration or deceleration of our population growth, according to circumstances, provided this is achieved within the parameters of freedom of conscience, the responsible decision of couples, and the principles of sexual and family morality”. Besides, what I believe is the true meaning of pro-life is not just letting a human being live; it also means that the life that every human being will live will be (at least materialistically) less difficult and as a result, probably more (spiritually) fulfilling.
So what is really hindering us from doing such a move? Simple answer: awareness and knowledge of the situation. If we can convince more people to become more responsible parents (or future parents), then the situation within a few years may not be as bad as we think it would be. It could be accomplished through thorough education via means such as information campaigns through various media, more emphasis on the relationship between the demand-supply system and the environment in schools, and support from the family. Again, this will only work if everyone is willing to do their part.
To summarize, how does reducing the increase of population, or reducing the population itself going to solve our problems? Well, here’s how it works:
By reducing the increase in population or reducing the population itself, the demand for all the resources will steadily decrease, which allows the said resources to regenerate faster than their current levels and, probably, back to their pre-Industrial-Revolution rates. The small increments in resources every year will add up and, if continued over time, will give us a comfortable surplus of resources. With more goods, the ratio of these per person will be better theoretically, and more people will be relatively rich. With lesser demand for goods, there will be more surplus of goods, and the prices of commodities will be lower. With lesser demand, we will not exploit our natural resources as much, helping them regenerate faster. The effects of global warming and pollution will be less evident, and slowly but surely, we can help stabilize the weather patterns, if not reverse them back to less hazardous ones. Overall, the world will be a better place than it is now.
Less mouths to feed, less room for greed. Theoretically.
No comments:
Post a Comment