Well I agree with the first part of this. My parents were both 1 of 9 children in 1950s/60s rural Ireland. There was little money and few jobs. They nearly all evenually emigrated. And yes, it made sense to have that many kids at that time for the reasons you give. More children meant more hands to work the land, which was one of the few sources of wealth. Ireland also had no welfare at that time. Their parents were doing what their parents had done and fully expected their children to look after them in old age. So it made sense. Which is part of the reason I think the whole ire at the Catholic Church is wrongly directed. Even in Britain in the past there were much larger families than we have now for similar reasons and there are fewer countries in the world who have been less gripped by any concern for religion than Britain. In the same way, my grandparents weren't stupid and didn't have 18 kids between them because of anything to do with what the Catholic Church said.Originally Posted by ron m.
But I don't see why your final line follows from all this? Ireland, for example, remains sparely populated when compared with the more densely populated but historically far richest Britain. Some of the most densely populated parts of the world are the richest. Take Manhatten. Around 1.8 million people crammed into a tiny little Island with some of the best living standards in the world. Meanwhile, Africa has some of the least densely populated countries on the planet and the worst social and economic problems. There is also China which is now 1/5 humanity, the most populus nation in the world, whose population has doubled in 60 years. In the same time they've lifted 275 million people out of poverty and life expectancy in that time has gone from 35 to around 73. There are numerous other examples which suggest that human numbers have little to do with anything when it comes to social or economic problems.
By the way, I should say, for what it is worth, that I still completely support the RH bill here. It is at least a start. I would like to see abortion on demand too. But I don't support these things because I think there are too many people about and this will help reduce the numbers. I support it because it is a basic issue of equality. Women can't play full and equal role in society when they can't control their fertilty in the same way that men can. Still, of course, most women here still wouldn't be able to do this even if the bill passed. The wider issue remains the Philippines imperialist domination. How to make progress when your economy is largely owned by foriegn multinationals who extract most of that wealth out of the country? And what is left is mostly hoovered by an elite in the Philippines who help facilitate this state of affairs. Worst still, many of these people are now the same ones blaming poverty on the poor having too many kids.
