Pros and cons

My articles on “overpopulation” and “population control” or lately more attractively termed as “population management and reproductive health” never fail to elicit opposite responses. The controversy is actually due to the burning issue of whether our country will follow the program adopted by the governments of other countries on reducing population growth through artificial contraception by the use of contraceptive pills and other devices (IUDs) financially supported by the United Nations and other government assisted private organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood of the United States of America. The main opposition to this program is that contraception promotes the culture of death because it prevents the inception of life.

In some countries the citizens are actually being forced by their governments through enactment of laws and adoption of policies to practice artificial contraception including abortion and sterilization and use of harmful pills. Some of these policies openly make it difficult for couples to procreate and for families to support their children.

In our country, there are also proposed laws still pending in Congress while some ordinances of local application promoting this program of population control have already been passed such as in Quezon City and Olongapo City and lately in Davao City. The dangerous aspect here is the removal of the objectionable features to make the program more acceptable and alluring. Thus abortion is apparently outlawed but couples are given freedom of choice from the entire range of artificial contraceptives and devices that are made available including those that may eventually result in abortion and other harmful consequences.

The responses I received dealt on the effect of the alleged overpopulation on the environment and the economy. The vigorous supporters of this artificial birth control (the pros which I oppose) are pushing for this program because as Mr. Brian Lewis from Merville, Paranaque says:

“The growing populations are consuming the natural world and within the lifetime, nature and many species will be destroyed. There is then a link between global warming, rising sea levels and possible catastrophe (without going into reasons). Too many to look after is an aggravating factor”.

In response, an article entitled “Too many People?” written by Jacqueline R. Kasun, (the Cons that favor my stand) has this to say:

“On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as Western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile compared to 330 in China.

Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe. For instance former Vice President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy nine scientists issued the “Leipzig Declaration in 1995 saying “…. There does not exist today a generally scientific consensus about “….greenhouse warming…. “Additionally the satellite readings of the global temperature, available on the NASA Web Site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend.

And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger”.

The Pros (Brian Lewis) also pointed out that:

“…it is reasonable to be worried that as Malthus predicted (too hastily but he was not wrong), food is already not available for much of the world population…. The Globe is finite in size so that new land is increasingly scarce. This may have recently been aggravated by our greed for fuels in the form of gasoline and diesel. The world population has trebled in my lifetime (2 billion to 6.5 billion) and it is reasonable to be worried that the call on all resources is going to be beyond our ability to provide”.

On the other hand Jacqueline Kasun has these to say:

“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50% in 1990 in the developed countries and 17 % in developing regions. In reality problems commonly blamed on “overpopulation” are the result of bad economic policy. For example, western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on overpopulation, but that was simply not true. The Ethiopian Government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. ... In fact, Africa beset with problems often blamed on “overpopulation, has only one-fifth the population density of Europe, and has an un-exploited food raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world according to estimates by Roger Revelle of Harvard and University of San Diego. The government of the Philippines relies on foreign aid to control population growth, but protects monopolies which buy farmers’ outputs at artificially low prices and sell their inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty”.

There you have them, the pros and cons on certain issues about overpopulation. It is easy to see which side is backed up by statistics and closer to the truth and which side is more of a myth on the purely economic and environmental aspect of this controversy, not to mention anymore the spiritual or moral and health issues.

E-mail us at [email protected].