9pm BBC2 SUNDAY - Toughest place to be a bus driver - Manila

[ron m.]

Don't agree. The scarity you describe is artificially created. It is not real scarity. The world produces enough food every year to feed the everyone ten times over but tons of it goes to waste because only a relatively tiny fraction can afford to buy it. And they dump it rather than give it away so the prices of these commodities aren't forced down. Which in turns means the rate or profit falls. All this leads to the strange situation where more people are seen as a problem. Yet, it shouldn't. If an extra hand comes along to help me with a particular task, it could be completed twice as quick as if only one person was doing it. Theoreticall,y therefore, more people should mean we all become more wealthy. The point is: every human is a consumer but also a potential producer or innovator. The fact we don't take advantage of the latter fact is a problem of the wasteful prevailing social relations, not of the poor having too many kids.

Actually, I wasn't referring to food (I was thinking more along the lines of non-renewable resources like oil), but since you've mentioned it... yes, the earth could can easily sustain all 7 billion of us (otherwise, we wouldn't be 7 billion and growing, would we?). You did allude to artificial scarcity and I could see how that could be true. But the reality is that even the basic needs such as food is scarce for an alarming proportion of the population, primarily because they do not have the means to obtain it (by cultivating or using industry to afford it). Yes, it is such an inefficient way to exist but that is how people behave, and conditions are exacerbated when the number of people increases.

Furthermore, my main point is that people in poor countries have a propensity to have more children because they do see them as a form of security (when the parents get older) and income potential. That is an axiom accepted by sociologists and scholars. It is also a generally accepted idea that opportunities are scarcer in centers where numbers are greater.

In theory, your idea works when people see themselves as part of a larger collective (or a Utopian state) and behaves as such. Sadly, that is not the case, especially in situations when resources are scarce. Socialism is a great concept but I have yet to see it work, we as humans are just not sophisticated enough. And though it may be true that all us can be potential producers and innovators, present conditions play a very big role in whether or not that becomes a reality. Josh and Rogelio are classic examples.

Compassion and charity are easier when you have, not when you have not. I like your idea, but that's just not the reality.

[Manila_Paul]

Furthermore, my main point is that people in poor countries have a propensity to have more children because they do see them as a form of security (when the parents get older) and income potential. That is an axiom accepted by sociologists and scholars. It is also a generally accepted idea that opportunities are scarcer in centers where numbers are greater.

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.

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.