Overpopulation in Philippines

Japan was already an economic powerhouse before WW2 and became only at par or lower than the Philippines after WW2 precisely because the war exhausted its economic resources. But because they already had the formula or the experience of becoming an economic power, it was imply a matter of ime before they would regain their economic strength. Hence, population was not a significant factor in their economic downfall but it was their entering into a war that caused it. On the other hand, the Philippines was never an economic power and the "fact" that it was the "stongest" economy IMMEDIATELY after the war was simply a function of US support. It was always an "up and coming" economic tiger but never really achieved that status, hence to compare it to Japan after the war is really a false comparison.

Now, if a high population is indeed a factor to higher development, then why did the Philippines - which was a strong economy immediately after the war - not develop exponentially with the increase in population?

Like I said, development is a complex issue and to reduce this into a caricature within the context of the RH bill vis-a-vis the meaning of population as a factor is to oversimplify matters. On the other hand, we know that we have a high population and the higher it becomes, the poorer the greater segment of that population becomes.

For the opponents of the RH bill to gain credibility to their assertion that population planning is not a factor in development and that development does in fact rely on higher populations, then they should first prove a priori that the bigger the population becomes, the richer we become. And that is something that the facts on the ground simply cannot sustain, especially when about 11 million of that population are overseas and probably the largest factor propping up the economy.

---

Brothers,

Just to sharpen our minds and continue the mental gymnastics on this topic. May I say :

The jury is still out on this one because there are valid hard data that supports both sides of the issue. There are several top notch papers on the pros and cons. One such study show that even if Japan's land area is similar to the Philippines, their population at 130 million is a lot higher than the Philippines but their per capita GDP is in the high 50,000 Plus USD compared to the Philippines almost 2000 USD . So the greater population is certainly not a handicap in their case. So we can conclude it must be due to several other factors. Remember, after WW2 economic and political conditions in Asia put the Philippines ahead of the whole caboodle. So what happened ? How did we end up dead last? I do not know.

As Brod mentioned, eventually, the law of diminishing returns will apply and you cannot overpopulate the Earth. It can only support so many people but for purposes of analyzing the UP study, we cannot argue a worst case scenario since the paper is merely commenting on "a proposed present day solution, to a present day problem". To apply the worst case scenario argument is like saying "Why try to save the Earth? The sun will eventually go Nova and destroy our solar system".

Having a massive amount of cheap labor helped the buildup of economic power in India and China. After artificially tampering with their Population Growth, China is in trouble because they now have a shortage of Women. "Sabi Da" , many couples aborted when they determined the baby was a girl. Many preferred males only!

IRRI believes the Philippines can be self sufficient in rice provided the Government gives it 100% support like Thailand, India and China. They concluded that there is still a lot of work to do to educate farmers on the Miracle rice. They even have a site trhat can be accessed by text for advise and assistance, Etc. The only factor that is a problem is Climatic Conditions.

And then there is also the study that says, Miracle Rice itself may have caused its own problems. Since they could plant 2 to 3 crops a year the world surplus in rice is keeping price low. Less than 5% of the entire production is actually exported. Maybe the Philippines is better off importing cheap rice and using the land for producing a cash cow crop like mangoes and even aquaculture or (drum roll please.. One of the Brods would love this..) Bananas!!!


Anyway, I am just playing devils advocate. I have no opinion one way or the other but I though I would just lay whatever I think and see where that takes us.

Hope you are not confused as I am already!

----------------------

I agree with Brod on this. I do not think the RH bill blames everything on population explosion because the nature of development is complex, but population does play a significant role. If true that higher population is key to development, then the Philippines with almost 100 million people should now be rich. And if true that we have natural resources that can support the population, then why is the VAST majority poor - food poor, land poor, development poor?

Why do we import rice? Even if we totally discounted the corruption in procurement of rice and the series of scams involving food security like fertilizers for crops, it is highly doubtful if the available arable land can feed the population. The Philippines is the 12th most populous nation on earth with a land area that is about 2/3 that of California but with a population 5 times as many. Population then becomes a very substantial issue that is simply brushed off by opponents of the RH bill.

It simply does not compute...