This Birthday Is Nothing to Celebrate

Email

The world's 7 billionth person is likely to be born today (Monday).

However, this birthday isn't something to celebrate.

Since the global population passed 6 billion only in late 1999, we've added more than 80 million people each year on average. And the environmental footprint of those people is expanding rapidly as emerging market populations modernize.

The planet may be able to accommodate these extra people and their consumption – but then again, it may not.

And if it can't, the drain on our planet's resources could harm us all.

So we'd better find a way to reduce population growth – fast.

Of course, if you think I'm about to propose something along the lines of China's one-child policy, you couldn't be more wrong.

We have economic means of population control that are neither coercive nor costly. And the sooner we implement them, the better.

A Disaster in the Making

When Thomas Malthus warned of overpopulation in 1798, the global population was approaching 1 billion – a level it reached in 1804. It had grown in the previous three centuries from 500 million in 1500. Thus, if the gradually increasing prosperity of 1500-1800 had continued – without the Industrial Revolution increasing world production capacity artificially – it would have reached 1.62 billion by 2011.

There is a very good case to be made that 1.62 billion is today's natural population, and that the growth since 1800 is artificial, caused by the Industrial Revolution removing previous limits on production. At that level, almost all serious environmental problems would go away. Even if all 1.62 billion of the world's inhabitants enjoyed Western living standards, the global warming and pollution effects of their output would be easily absorbed by the planetary ecosphere.

Around 2004, U.N. population projections had us reaching a population of 8 billion by 2027, then peaking at around 9.3 billion just before 2050 and declining slowly thereafter. Alas, the latest projections are not so sanguine. They have no peak in population this side of 2100, with population passing 10 billion and reaching 10.12 billion in 2100.

At this level, an environmental disaster is very likely.

For one thing, all those 10 billion people will want Western standards of living. We have seen that in the last two decades. As China, India, and other emerging markets fully entered the world economy, the number of people who can aspire to Western standards of living has increased from 600 million to about 3 billion, pushing up commodity prices and multiplying carbon emissions.

With a population of 10 billion affluent citizens, it's likely that the world economy will be unstable. At some point, we will run out of some crucial mineral, or a disease against which antibiotics are helpless will sweep the planet. The result will not be a gradual decline in living standards, because complex systems are not stable when put under stress. Instead, a collapse will occur, with perhaps 80% to 90% of the world's enlarged population being wiped out. Whether civilization will be reestablished after the collapse will depend on what caused it – and it is by no means certain.

We thus need to control population, "bending the curve" of its growth downwards so that it can peak as soon as possible and begin declining towards a safe level.

A Population Growth Plan

Most of the population control will need to take place in poor countries.

Japan has shown that in rich countries a natural process reduces population growth and produces a healthy decline. According to U.N. population projections, Japan's population will fall from its 2007 peak of 127 million to 91 million in 2020. At that point, it will be well on the way towards its pre-industrialization population of about 30 million. Conversely Nigeria's population is projected to be over 700 million in 2100 – one's mind can only boggle at what life in Lagos will be like!

I realize that China's "one child" policy has given population control a bad name – and rightfully so. Instituted in 1978, the policy is brutal and intrusive. However, China in 1978 was an extremely brutal society. It had just ended the Cultural Revolution that killed more than 1 million people – so it's not surprising that its government chose brutal means to achieve its goal. Certainly the policy has been successful. China today is nearing population equilibrium with nearly 400 million fewer people than it would otherwise have had – and a much wealthier society in consequence.

Still, brutality is completely unnecessary when economic means are available.

For example, it is well known that a big motivator for large families in poor countries is the need to provide for one's old age. We could thus introduce a program across Africa (where population growth is fastest and most dangerous) for a pension of, say, $2 per day for all Africans reaching 70. Since there are only about 30 million Africans of that age from a total population of 800 million, this would be relatively cheap – it would cost about $20 billion annually.

With this security in their old age, there would then be no need for the very large families that Africans have traditionally wanted. And over a generation, as in China, African population growth would slow to a more manageable level. That, in turn, would make Africa richer, because there would be less of a drain on schools, housing, and infrastructure. It also would slow population growth further, as lower fertility normally goes with higher income.

So let's mourn the arrival of the world's 7 billionth inhabitant – while welcoming the baby personally. And let's resolve to slow population growth, so that ideally it never reaches 8 billion.

News and Related Story Links:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. G Smith | October 31, 2011

    Besides your opinion on Global Warming being totally wrong, your anaysis on population growth effects leaves out so many crucial factors that mitigate "overpopulation" as to make your article nothing more than a communist/ fascist racial diatribe for human eradication to the benefit of the tyrants. Just who doe you think will pay for all of the entitlrments proffered by our generous if stupid politicians , the nanny's of ninckompoop" ???

    • Maryann from Concord, NH | October 31, 2011

      Mr. Smith – you have obviously never studied history or any hard science. Every great civilization has usually overpopulated itself out of existence, while destroying its ecosystem. Perhaps you have also studiously avoided hearing that the world is running out of drinking water right now. Every river and creek, no matter how remote is contaminated. Look it up for yourself, I dare you.

      There are no jobs for average people anymore – they've been outsourced for cheaper labor. We have children IN THIS COUNTRY, sir, that go to school & bed – hungry. When push comes to shove, the countries that produce extra food will no longer give to the poor countries the food that is keeping them from starving. WE, the folks who have traditionally given to those less fortunate will have so many poor in our own country that we will keep the so called excess for our own. In all probabiliites, this will mean that 2 Billion in the developing world will die of starvation within the next 2 decades.
      I put it to everyone out there: If we could reduce significantly reduce the planet's population in a controlled manner as this article suggests (without the giveaways) since we have automated so very much, consider – we could all concentrate more on being creative and innovative, instead of the last 2 – 3 decades of most living from paycheck to paycheck. Put simply, the fewer there are – the more to go around.

      • Dale on left coast | November 1, 2011

        Maryann . . . absolute nonsense . . . When the third world become "Average People" . . . all boats will be floated. Opportunities will abound, some you could not even imagine today . . .

        • Maryann from Concord, NH | November 1, 2011

          Dale on left coast… When do you expect the 3rd world to become "average people"? I'd say about the same time we're all living at the 3rd world living standard. Really, there will only be opportunities for the very few, the rest will be living at the subsistence level that many of our own people are enjoying-NOT! right now.

          In case you've never noticed the facts of financial life, let me give you a small fundamental: the larger the population – the more money you need to survive, let alone do more than survive; the smaller the population – the less money you need to survive. Consider how much money it takes to live in any city versus smaller and smaller cities. Think about it and equate the same quality of life.

          I'm sorry to burst you're bubbles, but the people who currently are in power are not going to give it up without a fight – not just here, but all over the industrialized world. I do remember when the folks at top and bottom worked together & indeed all boats floated together. I also remember the corporate raiders like Romney breaking up perfectly fine running companies and corporations – because they were worth more that way and getting rich stealing hard working men & womens' pensions to boot. Our government did nothing but set up a taxpayer funded fund to cover the lost pensions (forgive me, but they were propably paid to look the other way).

          It's sad because I can envision a virtual Utopia given our current technology in automation, communication, etc., however, it will only be possible with a sustainable human population living within the ecosystems' ability to feed, etc. and a population that refuses to allow extreme stupidity and greed to rule the world.

  2. Nils Arvidsson | October 31, 2011

    The Christian despots have to be stopped.

  3. David Drinan. | October 31, 2011

    Where do you get this crap about population growth….. think about it a bit more… where do you get your figures?… you have to take someone else's word for it… every two bit dictator doubles or more their figures because foreign aid is a per capita basis… China's one child policy where many girl babies don't survive, a paddock full of bulls is no good to you… you need a paddock full of heifers and a few bulls, any fool knows that… Japan is going to lose 20 million in the next thirty years….Costello when he was treasurer was crowing because their policies had got the Aust. birth rate up from 1.6 to 1.7 when 2.2 is needed to just maintain what you have…. go and have a look at the birth rates of all the countries of the world and see how many are anywhere near 2.2… when you find one let me know because I cannot…. do a bit more research and a bit more thinking, don't just parrot what others tell you… think about how many have been killed in all the wars since 1900, all that have died of starvation, sterilisation programs such that India had…. etc. etc. etc. maybe I think too much and question too much… maybe you should do a bit more too.
    Kindest regards,
    Davo.

  4. mark chan | October 31, 2011

    World population is a global issue requiring a global solution. A person with a sense of righteousness should not criticize China's population contro which was implemented in 1978, and calling it brutal is both untrue and faux. It was, and still is, in China's national interest and that of the world for China to implement the one-child policy which for over 30 years has reduced China's implied population by a substantial 400 million. The policy was executed with toughness (but never brutality and shame to Western politicians who like to demonize China for their ultra political motive) because otherwise it would not work. The opposite example is India whose government has openly admitted that it has lost control of its populations growth. In a decade or so, India's population will be bigger than China's. It is easy and convenient for the West to criticize China and not to do it on India because the former is an autocracy and the latter democracy. But this should not be the basis for judging a country's socio-economic performance and contribution to the world. When it comes to killing people , USA has done the most, by its over 200 military actions against countries of the world since Thomas Jefferson. Americans : stop being hypocritical.

    • Jian Bugel | October 31, 2011

      You might think differently about China's one child policy if you were your mothers second pregnancy while she was being ushered to the abortion clinic.. or.. maybe you wouldn't be thinking at all.

  5. Roy Thomson | October 31, 2011

    It is clear that existing Western aid policies in poor African countries have failed miserably, in many cases simply multiplying the general population in poverty and enriching the Swiss bank accounts of their corrupt leaders.

    Nigeria, although immensely corrupt, has its own oil wealth, so Western aid is less consequential and the population problem more difficult to solve.

    Raising wealth levels to that of Japan in order to reduce the population is out of the question. The China solution seems to be politically incorrect, though it has worked there and may possibly work in India, though the people there are less compliant than the Chinese.

    Unless some sort of anti-fertilization methods are developed and used secretly or otherwise, then there would seem few alternatives to population control than by the natural occurances of starvation, disease or even war.

  6. Jonathan | October 31, 2011

    Very good article…and one that shows finding a solution is potentially a bipartisan issue. How do we make it happen?

  7. Elliott | October 31, 2011

    The increase in world population is disguising the demographic decline in the developed world. When fertility diminishes below 2.11/woman, replacement is doomed. This is temporarily cloaked with increased longevity; however, it first dooms social security as there are too few workers to support retirees, then the society collapses due to depopulation.

    Europe (sans Muslim immigration) is already in the grips of demographic winter, with a 1.4 fertility rate. Japan is doomed, with a 1.2 fertility rate and NO IMMIGRATION.

    It is perverse how the entire human family has fallen prey to different reasons to embrace population control. In the US, Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" established the ethic that human reproduction would destroy the earth. Margaret Sanger's Negro Project of 1939 sought to control the birthrate of 'less desirable' races. Following the embarrassment of the Holocaust to the eugenecist agenda, Sanger's program reemerged as Planned Parenthood. In Japan, the loss of WWII discouraged a baby boom in the defeated nation. In China, the one child policy accomplished the same.
    While the rest of the world has cut down on childbearing, Moslem nations have more than made up for the rest of us. Fertility rates here average >4! Demographic Jihad will transform Europe unless indiginous birthrates increase and Muslim immigration is curtailed.

  8. Ron | October 31, 2011

    There are many of us who do not believe in man made global warming.

  9. Observer | October 31, 2011

    The real tragedy is that we are having the wrong kind of babies. that survival of the fittest is not happening but society is getting dumber. I know so many highly educated people who don't plan to have any children and high school dropouts that are bragging about grandchildren at 40. All we are breeding into society are macho, aggressive males and females who are unable to count the days of the month. These traits are not going to work well as the environment goes down because of overpopulation. I fear for the future.

    • Steve | October 31, 2011

      I believe your observations are the most enlightened of all; much like 16th century Galileo's of our solar system. His and your contemporaries refuse(d) to acknowledge reality because the facts of reality threaten the status quo. Moreover, have you also considered that those who are not having children belong to the very sector which influences the breeding of "dumber" offspring to its own advantage? The greater the number of slaves the more and richer the slave owners.

  10. Michael Barger | October 31, 2011

    Non-solution to a dubious problem. Ranks high on the gullibility quotient. This author has lost all credibility with me.

  11. Don Dale | October 31, 2011

    Well, can remember reading about the threat of population growth 50 years ago in college. All that's been
    Done here is to update us on the reality of what's happenning.
    Really have to laugh at the intellectuals, or over educated, or pious/realigous
    Readers who have their heads stuck in the sand. Just have to think about what
    It will take in terms of land for crops (millions of acres are eroding away); the water
    Needed (it's getting scarce); and the fertilizer needed ($1000 a ton for potash
    Next year – hey people wake up.. Could have really ticked everyone
    Off and extrapolated growth of mulims in US, by 2100

  12. DaveR | October 31, 2011

    What a bunch of blather! Please stick to economics and financial observations, analysis and commentary. Global warming and cooling cycles and climate changes are well documented in archeological, ice and ancient tree species, but proof of anthropological cause is equivocal at best. If the industrial revolution is artificial, then what are you and most other people who are alive today? Who decides who has the right to survive and propagate their family genes? One could just as easily observe that most human misery is not due to over population or even drought, pestilence or other natural disasters, but rather due to man's inhumanity to man. Africa has provided many examples, including many recent and on-going ones.

  13. Billy | October 31, 2011

    Do you believe everything you hear? Ehrlich said the planet would self destruct at 3 billion. The PBS news hour had an oceanographer on who claimed that all the water on the planet would be undrinkable after the Macondo spill. CBC reported that the population of PEI and Newfoundland would die from the oil.

    You are just another drama queen. I won't be reading any more of your writing.

  14. Jim | October 31, 2011

    Wow! The comments in response to the article are rather amazing. Maybe I shouldn't be subscribing to this service, if this is the company I'm with. "Where do you get this crap about population growth…" The numbers speak for themselves. They are not pulled out of thin air. The world wide price of commodities is an outward sign of what is happening: more people, better standards of living around the world, and increased strain on limited resources that we use to manufacture items that people consume. However, we address the problem of world population, it is a problem. Hutchinson proposes an economic solution that may be workable; however, I think that he ignores cultural influences, including religious, that will take several generations to overcome. As to global warming, the weight of authority is on the side of its existence, and if you are wrong as to its non-occurance, then we are screwed. Finally, as to the comment, "The real tragedy is that we are having the wrong kind of babies. that survival of the fittest is not happening but society is getting dumber." Hasn't survival of the fittest meant the strongest, healthiest, or quickest, until the last 75 years of human existence (not the smartest)????

  15. jj | October 31, 2011

    Good comments from Jim.It was needed to offset all the fools who wrote nonsense.I believe that bad air is bad for your health,whether it causes global warming or not.People living in poverty and producing 8 children is not a good decision.

  16. gregory | October 31, 2011

    Fast and Effective Medicine . It will work the magic the second it is pronounced in a extremely pluripotent manner encompassing the very law of natural selection. Where there's no water no plants will grow…. so cut off the water !!

    Cut off all aids, Close doors on immigration. And lets sit back and count how fast the population declines in those countries in question. Of course you will first have to grow a slightly thicker skin . Learn how not to lend a hand where it might come back and bite the hands that feeds ya.
    You see it's never easy to watch self anihilation taking place right before eyes.

    Oh yeah, you will also have to buy some good earplugs of sort, if you want to get some good sleep. There will be few Good Samaritans of all colors and creed , but mostly those making perpetual living at so called "Charity Works", crying foul with loud speakers on your ear drums day and night.

  17. Kosta Vasiljev | October 31, 2011

    Based on the angry anti-Hutchison responses, it is not difficult to realize that the population goes much higher from here. I am most grateful that I do not have children to suffer the consequences of such ignorance.

  18. john ashton | October 31, 2011

    In reading the preceding it is deeply depressing to be reminded why we are unlikely to arrest the developing situation. Unsupported statements about the arguments presented being 'racial diatribes' and a rapid descent from there into barely camouflaged eugenics. We have someone who even questions figures for population growth and another who fails to accept that CO2 levels are rising to the highest level since perhaps the Cretaceous period. If they wish to win an argument then I suggest to these authors that they read a wide range of scientific papers, do not quote beliefs in an attempt to discredit this science and to think of the consequences to their children and grandchildren if the consensus is correct. I am an engineer and have traveled the world for 40 years. I have children and grandchildren. I am very worried for them. I think you should be for yours too.

    I suggest the ranters stop ranting and think coolly. Ask yourselves the question; 'What if I am wrong?

  19. Daverco | October 31, 2011

    Jim,
    You need to do some research. Although the commenters are somewhat vituperative they are essentially right. The numbers quoted are from the UN. Is that a trustworthy group with no agenda? You have no faith in humankind. We have been and will continue to feed and cloth people. New ideas. New resources. New methods. Population decline will a huge problem worldwide in fifty years. Hutchinson is twenty years behind in his knowledge base. He is fighting the last war. The solution to everything is economic growth. We all get rich and we all survive and thrive. Learn biology. Grow or die. Those are the only two choices. There is no stasis in nature.

  20. Linda | October 31, 2011

    Hurrah! Finally someone is saying what I have said for the last 20 years. Yes, overpopulation will doom us all. Perhaps the capitalists ought to think about that before pushing a no abortion, no family planning agenda so they can have more bodies to buy their products. Media needs to stop showing the Christian crowd shows like "18 and counting" about a women who is continuing to have children after 18 of them.
    Be fruitful and multiply was OK 3 thousand years ago, not now! The Chinese were not so wrong with their views. It worked, didn't it. I say that every woman from every race, ethnic culture, socioeconomic status should be sterilized after 2 children, one to replace her and one to replace one father. Then nature can thin the herds and stop the momentum of this disaster. Watch the film "Idiocracy" to show why this democracy is not working. (It is stupidly funny but makes a big point!)

  21. Robert PMO | October 31, 2011

    The writer of the article is just scare mongering. He's trying to get the attention of the mainstream media so he can go on some talk show.

    Technology, free enterprise, and the profit motive will deal with population growth well before 90% of the human race gets wiped out as predicted in this idiotic article.

  22. Andrew | November 1, 2011

    "The world is NOT over-populated. More than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty…. Yes, certain cities are over-populated, of course. Yet the entire population of the world could fit inside the state of Arkansas. So, then, how is the world 'over-populated'? Europe and Japan will be facing under-population crises in the coming decades, even according to UN studies on population."

    "The planet's population will most likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion; other predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. The world may soon be facing an under-population crisis — a prospect that has all but escaped media scrutiny."

    "The U.S. State Department and the United Nations are major players in this population game. Their measures are funded in large part by top U.S. foundations like Ford and Rockefeller. Ted Turner, founder of CNN, is also a major population-control sugar daddy for the United Nations, having cut a $1 billion check to the world body when conservatives in the U.S. Congress threatened not to pay off America's back dues to the U.N. if those dues would be used to set up abortion clinics overseas."

    "Make no mistake: Abortion and depopulation are a top priority for the powers-that-be in the West. And it's not just about women's sexual freedom and independence, as many claim."

    — Anthony C. LoBaido

    (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19076)

  23. Dale on left coast | November 1, 2011

    "As China, India, and other emerging markets fully entered the world economy, the number of people who can aspire to Western standards of living has increased from 600 million to about 3 billion, pushing up commodity prices and multiplying carbon emissions"
    By "Carbon Emissions" I will assume you are talking about CO2. CO2 is NOT CARBON, it is a benign, odorless, colorless, rare gas . . . that tends to be heavier and is concentrated near the earth. As the population increases and demands for food also increase . . . . high levels of CO2 will ensure an expanding food supply, shrinking levels of CO2, especially if it got into the 200 ppm level . . . would ensure mass starvation. There is plenty of Provable Science to back this up . . . unlike the Anthropogenic Gorebull Warming hypothesis . . . that has NO Science involved . . . only Belief!!!

  24. Paul | November 1, 2011

    No. I disagree.
    The column is unsound fear mongering. Its conclusions don't follow its premises, which themselves lack detailed sources. At least make a sound argument when attacking basic human rights.
    Humanity is thriving. What's so wrong with that? Why are we searching for a way to stop when we're on the right track?
    The idea, overpopulation, is irreconcilable with the rules.

  25. Eric V. Encina | November 2, 2011

    Population growth of both rich and poor countries is important despite of boom and bust economy, for the present and for the future. Countries with fertility decline or scarcity of babies and children are in great danger. It is important to repeat here the truth that every child is a gift from God to a family. Every child or human being created in the image and likeness of God is the wealth of the nation and of the world. It means that every individual citizen is the important asset of the nation. No babies, no individuals, no citizens, no families mean no productions, no consumptions and therefore no nations and no civilizations. Every citizen is a co-contributor of the country’s progress. Population growth is the divine will of God according to His plans. It has both natural and supernatural purposes and dimensions to the PLANS of God – the Author of Life. Population is the glory of life and of the family, and ultimately the glory of God forever.

    We must bear in mind that population growth is not a population explosion. Population explosion is just a plain myth of the population controllers. Population control of the culture of death is under the aegis of the world satanic dimensions operated by the anti-Christ and his surrogates. Hence, if the culture of death under the control of money and sham development will prevail and take over the whole world, WHO WILL REPLACE THE AGING POPULATION? And as nobody knows the end of the world when, without babies, children and families, who will be the next producers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, priests, nuns, farmers, lay peoples and next saints? Abortion certainly kills the best children of the family(s). Children are gifts of God sent, who might cure our problems while the world and humanity as a whole continues to struggle for survival. Abortion is against productions, and therefore against the true nature of economy as a whole.

  26. Eric V. Encina | November 2, 2011

    U.N. ANTI-LIFE/FAMILY/JUSTICE MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

    By Eric V. Encina

    Philippines is a Catholic nation, and is supposed to be enjoying sovereignty and independent State under which our Government exercises full and complete control over all the island and waters embraced therein. Therefore no other foreign government or international agency can conduct or dictate its activities within our territory without government sanction. This is a universal or supposed to be infallible principle among nations.

    Unfortunately, there are certain activities which are objectively anti-life, anti-family and anti-justice being carried out some country team agencies of the United Nations (UN) in collusion with those maverick Filipinos because of influence and money within our territory, first on the national level and lately on the local level, that is on the provincial level.

    It is so annoying to know, to see and hear how the UN schemes and some of its agencies can freely and imperiously pressure or push the Philippines to reach some goals which they have tantalizingly denominated as "Millennium Development Goals" or MDG. They even dare to venture to set annual targets that Philippines must meet to attain that beguiling MDGs by 2015 to the extent of dictatedly and assertively rating our Philippine performance and telling us the areas where we are "on or off the target".

    U.N. DECEPTION:

    At first glance and reading the U.N. MDG documents, the goals listed seem to be attractive. Of course, we Filipinos would like to eradicate poverty, hunger, unemployment, develop partnership for development, ensure environmental sustainability, combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases, also achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empowerment of women, reduce child mortality and improve maternal health. BUT THE DANGER IS: on the hard look, these MDGs are only re-written, expanded and astutely or deceitfully attractive version of a program designed way back in 1974 that contained in A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT KNOWN THE NATIONAL SECURITY STUDY MEMORANDUM (NSSM) 200. This document presents that POPULATION GROWTH IN THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES LIKE THE PHILIPPINES is a threat to the economic and political security of THE RICH NATIONS specifically in the U.S. HOWEVER, THEY DO NOT SEE THAT IT IS NOT THE POPULATION GROWTH of the third world nations that threatens the political and economic security of the rich nations. But rather it is the their own self-auto-destructive system of economics and political policies. The accusation that third world populations are a threat to rich nations is unfounded.

    And to maintain access to strategies resources to third world countries, THE PROGRAM OF THE U.N. IS SO RADICAL that aims to DEPOPULATE the them not only by ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES AND INFORMATION but also by the education and indoctrination of the new generation of children regarding the desirability of the smaller family size. And worse, U.N. is behind the push to legalise abortion in the Philipines.

    Aside from wielding their financial power channeled through INTEREST BEARING LOANS, CONDITIONAL GRANTS AND PACKAGES in the form of OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) coming from agencies like UNPFA, UNDP AND THE INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD (IPP) the synthesis of the program has adopted a more enticing and tricky new look through the MDGs that include poverty, hunger, environmental protection, maternal and reproductive health services. All these are used astutely to mislead us towards culture of death. They are using some complex and technical words to avoid their hidden agenda from being noticed.

    At the UNESCO media breakfast forum as reported, the representatives of these agencies confirmed that Philippines is "off target" in the MDGs for universal access to education, maternal mortality and access to reproductive health services because Filipinos, like any other couples in other countries HAVE BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND ACCESS TO THE RIGHT OF CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD TO USE AND BECAUSE THE COUNTRY HAS NOT SQUARELY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF CONTROLLING RAPID POPULATION GROWTH. But is there really rapid population growth rate in the Philippines?

    And since they want to do everything to contol the population rate and they are stymied in their efforts to have their population control program on the national level, they have their tactics to the more vulnerable local government units or provinces where, as repoted by UNPFA representative, said AGENCY has already PROVIDED THIS 2008 OF US$1.7 MILLION WORTH OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT INCLUDE "condoms, pills and injectables THAT PREVENT PREGNANCY" with 540 LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS ALREADY AVAILING OF THEIR ASSISTANCE TO CONTROL THE POPULATION RATE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS.

    That means, there is more abortion. Modern Contraception leads to abortion. And this is very alarming indeed.These conscienceless and highly sinous international agencies through their financial power continue to pressure our Philipine Government to adopt their POPULATION CONTROL METHODS and they are using media to PROPAGATE THE the sea of lies, the myths, to mislead, misinform or obfuscate, and deceive the whole population. They continue vociferously to peddle the myth and using fake evidences and harping on our RAPID POPULATION GROWTH RATE WHICH IS HIGHLY EXAGGERATED. They place us in the same situation as those countries in the Western world that regret or regretted having adopted POPULATION CONTROL AND ABORTION ON DEMAND, and now encouraging more births. They continue to peddle and bombozzle us that Philipines is over-populated with POOR PEOPLE so we have to limit the number of poor being born.

    These international agencies want and dictate the Philipine Government to inform Filipino couples especially the poor famiies, women about the reproductive health services like the use of ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES without telling us the TRUTH that even the World Health Organization (WHO) itself in a study, has already confirmed that ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES INCREASE THE RISKS OF BREAST, CERVIX AND LIVER CANCER. They are already millions of Filipino women suffering breast and cervix cancers and other debilitating diseases following the use of contraceptives. They are not telling to the Filipino people of the medical findings: that CONTRACEPTIVE PILLS CAUSE OR INDUCE ABORTION; that those who have used contraceptives have suffered various ailments exposing them and their children to serious bodily and emotional risks along with moral and spiritual tremendous problems; that contraceptive pill has adverse side-effects on every organ system of the human body as it interferes with the normal functioning of the woman's reproductive system; that documented cases show infants of mothers with histories of contraceptive use have been afflicted with CONGENITAL HEARTH DISEASE; that use of pills cause the lowering of bodily resistance to infection and hepatic adenoma that could cause DEATH through abdominal bleeding, nervousness and excessive irritability; that IUD cause leukemia, pelvic infection, uterine perforation, ectopic pregnancy and therapeutic abortion; that DEPOPROVERA INJECTABLE IS ALREADY BANNED IN THE US because it has caused bone cancer and congenital malformation of babies if they fail; that tubal ligation causes severe bleeding, pelvic infection and ectopic pregnancy; that vasectomy may result in hemorrhage, greater risks of thyroid disorders, diabetes, hearth and circulatory diseases; that condoms are not "foolproof" in preventing HIV/AIDS and may also lead to unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

    These international agencies are not actually promoting real reproductive health to Filipino people. Reproductive health could be just a codeword for contraception and abortion. The U.N. reproductive health program is harmful, IS ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-FAMILY AND ANTI-POOR to advance their population control program to the intent of "inducing" the local government units or provincial governments to pass ordinances about reproductive health and population management–which is nothing but purely to control the population. The international agencies to pressure the local goverment units and the provincial governments in the Philippines is about impinging on the constitutional right and duty of parents to educate their children according to their faith and morals. Our Filipino government leaders, politicians and economists are subservient for personal vested interest and benefits to these michiavellian international agencies. And it is also sad that millions of Filipinos are gullible enough to believe that population control, birth control, contraceptives and abortion could help to solve poverty. Poverty is worse in the Philippines, not because of population rate but because of the existing economic and financial system that is hostile to life and family and based on debt, unfair distribution of wealth, corruptions in the government and control of money and resources by the tycoons, international bankers and multinational corporations that support imperialistic population control programs and culture of death.

    It is about time for these international agencies to back off and leave us alone. They might be welcome if they will change their policies from death to life.

    Eric V. Encina
    Philippines

  27. diane | November 2, 2011

    Stop all the free handouts for the people having all these children, make them support their own kids. All they ever do is complain that is never enough, and how is your child my responsibility ?
    I am so fed up with all these losers, You have to pass a test to drive a car why not be a parent, if you can't show a way to support this child, you don't get to keep it. the child is put up for adoption and your given an chance too go get a education, if you, keep the child, you can support it yourself .

  28. Jim | November 2, 2011

    The power of the Catholic Church is alive and well. With all its millions in wealth, it seeks to keep much of the world, particularly the women, poor and pregnant. Yes, Andrew, much of the world is not inhabited by people because it is uninhabitable (much of the earth is covered by sea or ice cap or desert). Not enough people? Tell that to the starving millions in Africa. Food prices going up world wide for a reason? Look at the cost of raw materials — seed, feed and fuel. Scarce economic resources are getting scarcer. Want an unbiased look at the population figures, try the Population Reference Bureau, a U.S. organization not connected to the UN. The world grew by 1 billion in the last 12 years; that should be an eye opener even if you believe that capitalism will conquer all (or religion or blind faith).

    • Paul | November 5, 2011

      My tax dollars are making scarce economic resources, farmland, scarcer. Check this web address to see some of the acres in your state that are vacant because I pay, through taxes, to keep them that way.
      http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_20110325_consv_en_safe.html
      These acres are not uninhabitable, not underwater, not under ice caps, and not desert. People inhabited these acres. People produced crops on these acres that sustained themselves and their families.
      Food prices going up world wide for a reason. The reason is called "inflation." Printing unlimited amounts of baseless currency devalues said currency and prices go up. Remember that food doesn't come from the grocery store and changing numbers at that store do not always indicate the availability of food.
      Why not offer the starving millions in Africa a chance to develop Conservation Reserve Program acres into production, thereby feeding themselves and many others. Why not stand by the words posted in our famous harbor?
      "Give me your tired, your poor,
      Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

      Let us share our huge wealth and feed not only our world's current population but billions more.

  29. Joe S | November 9, 2011

    Wow, this sure got people's attention. The fact of the matter is that ALL this population growth is due to the fact that people are living longer, NOT due to birthrates which have declined severly throughout the world, including third world countries. As one of the earlier respondants noted, Malthus and all the population scare mongers since fail to account for the fact that technology improvements have resulted in vastly greater productivity in agriculture and significant improvements in environmental quality that has more than kept up with population growth. There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone, but it gets used as a political weapon by corrupt government regimes.

    As for fuel and water, we're on the verge of the greatest improvement in renewable energy, we've recently discovered vast new reserves of both natural gas and oil, and the world in 2/3rds water that when the time comes, we can desalinate.

    As any historian will tell you, when population grows, so does economic prosperity, and the reverse is true as well. What we're seeing now in Europe is the inability of socialist countries to pay for the healthcare and retirement benefits of their aging population. If birth rates had not be in such decline in Greece and Italy, there would be many more productive people working, spending, and paying taxes. In some of those same countries the government is trying to increase birth rates by offering financial incentives for having babies, but it's too liitle, too late. We're headed for the same mess here in the USA where birthrates are only about 2.2 children per couple, barely at the replacement rate. In Italy, France and many European countries birthrates have been between only 1.3 and 1.7, well below the repacement level.
    Bottom line is that we need more young people in the global economy to support the commitments all governments continue to make toward healthcare and retirement benefits. China and Japan are headed for cataclismic population declines this century and they will end up with a huge number of old people with not nearly enough productive people in their economies to support them. All this is well known by any reputable demographer. Martin Hutchinson would be well-advised to learn a bit more about things like this before spouting off. As far as I'm conconcerned, he's lost all credibility with me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 1 = five

Some HTML is OK

© 2014 Money Map Press. All Rights Reserved. Protected by copyright of the United States and international treaties. Any reproduction, copying, or redistribution (electronic or otherwise, including the world wide web), of content from this webpage, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Money Morning. 16 W. Madison St. Baltimore, MD, 21201, Email: customerservice@MoneyMorning.com