by Edcer Escudero
Seven billion, and still counting.
That’s the number of humans – black, white, yellow, brown – that occupy space on Planet Earth today. These humans are spread unevenly in seven continents – Africa, Asia, Antarctica, Europe, North America, South America, Australia.
The United Nations has set October 31, 2011 as the day when the world’s population officially reached the seven billion plateau.
Interesting? Not really. It’s alarming, says the Global Foodprint Network (GFN), which came out last month with the calculation that by the year 2030, man will need a
second planet to accommodate an additional one to two billion human beings. No problem. There’s the moon up above.
Wow, what a fantastic scenario! Imagine, a mass exodus of humans in space from Planet Earth to the beautiful moon. This one will definitely dwarf the biblical exodus of the Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land.
How accurate, or realistic is the GFN calculation? Well, note that it’s only a calculation, not an established fact. So, we may take it for what it is – a calculation which, for all we know, would turn out to be a huge miscalculation.
Now, as far as two hundred years ago, Thomas Robert Malthus, an English university professor and political economist, theorized that man’s natural propensity to procreate will outpace his capacity and ability to produce food and create ways and means to sustain his existence and assure his survival.
That theory, which later became and Malthusian Doctrine, was predicated on a pessimistic view (Malthus’s) of the future. He postulated that overpopulation will ultimately cause mankind’s downfall brought about by mass starvation all over the areas that are overpopulated.
Sans formal or official declaration, Malthus was probably the world’s first advocate of population control. He considered war, famine, plague, late marriage and self-restraint as affective means of curbing population growth. We rejected birth control.
The Malthusian doctrine asserts that “population increases at a geometrical ratio, and if unchecked, will overtake food supply, which increases arithmetically.”
Controlling population growth was Malthus’s greatest concern as a political economist. He foresaw as early as late 18th century, today’s population woes, which pos very serious multitudinal risks and dangers to man’s life.
The Reproductive Health bill pending in our congress recognizes these dangers. Proponents of the bill should stress the valid message of the Malthusian Doctrine. There is nothing wrong with population control in the face of massive poverty among the great mass of our people. What is wrong is finding illegal ways to arrest population growth.
Too many people, too little food on the table. That should propel our leaders in government, especially population planners, to devise viable long-terms plans and programs.
Opponents of the RH bill should stop imagining dangers from the passage of the bill like, promiscuity, teenage pregnancies, immorality, etc. The RH bill is a population control bill (never mind the unconvincing denials of its authors). Some churchmen aver that it is a birth control bill. No, it is not. They have a cross-eyed view of it, unfortunately.
Should we control population? What do we gain if we don’t? And what do we lose if we don’t? Let our lawmakers answer these questions. After all, they are paid to think for us, their constituents. Speak up, Mister / Madame Public Servant!
