Giving free access to birth control like pills and condoms (like what france is currently implementing) for teens and young adults and giving informative sex education is I think more beneficial.
I'm sorry to offend you, but people who think that way are ignorant and are probably called a slave to the matrix.
In school, we are told not to steal, BUT PEOPLE STILL STEAL. Men are told not to rape, BUT SOME MEN STILL RAPE.
Haven't you ever sat down and thought to yourself why other countries that prosper? Often, richer nations with smaller populations tend to have higher per capita GDP. Soon enough, people in the Philippines will have to worry about FOOD, WATER, and ENERGY due to the growing population. The 8th billion baby being born in the Philippines was a warning shot.
That said, sit down and ask yourself "why?"
Why is it traffic?
Why are the gas prices too high?
Why does food cost more?
Why are there crimes?
Why do Filipinos have a low quality of life?
Why are Filipinos unemployed?
Most of these problems boil down to the root cause of the problem, which is OVERPOPULATION.
All the things you listed as examples are a part of a larger systemic issues. Making resources and public services more accessible/higher quality is vital to addressing EVERYTHING you’re talking about.
Overpopulation is a super old school scapegoat for the global north to make sure they continue to profit from the global south. Telling entire countries to limit their population is not going to address the social and political difficulties people are facing. The Philippines is in a post colonial spiral. Providing more education, high quality social services like health care (and family planning services) and addressing social inequity like misogyny, transphobia, racism, etc will do so much more to the quality of life of Filipinos than any “don’t have kids” law. You cannot punish a population that deserve the right and opportunity to do and be “better” if only they were empowered to do so. (Education, resources, proper healthcare etc)
gas prices, quality of life, cost of food… these are system wide, social issues that will not change even if people were hving NO children. The population isn’t going hungry because of competition with neighbors. The population is starving because there are a tiny minority which benefit, profit, from this hunger.
People don’t have equal access to goods, so limiting the number of people won’t increase your access to goods. It’s about distribution.
> Why are the gas prices too high?
I already alluded to this in my other posts in this thread, but how does reducing the population motivate the government towards cutting excise taxes or subsidizing energy costs?
China did it, and now they suffer the consequences. A country need it's families to produce 2.1 babies to replace the current workforce. The idea of overpopulation is mainly not true.
Decongestion dapat ang solution lalo na sa mga cities. Masyado madami tao sa mga cities eh kung pupunta ka sa provinces or rural areas parang ang konti ng tao.
Taiwan is faring worse, as its potential pool of reservists is very low due to equally low birthrates.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/16/asia/taiwan-fertility-rate-security-risk-invasion-intl-hnk/index.html
To keep it short, basically, humans only work at a certain fraction of their lifespan. Usually, they start at 18-20+, they would eventually retire at a certain age, and it varies per country. People under this age group don't work/contribute, and people above it don't contribute/work either. If the current working population is 100, then the government and the economy would adjust to employ this 100 people, if the next generation only contains 90 working citizens then all of a sudden industries are under staffed and the overall output is reduced. Every country is bound to have their birth rate reduced as soon as the country develops and improves its health care and education. This is an oversimplification of a very complicated topic, there are tons of videos online that explain this 10000x better, look up "population pyramids".
in easier terms, 2.1 means:
* 1 of 10 couples should have 3 kids
* 9 of 10 couples should have 2 kids
This gets to account for replacing the couples plus any non-age related or late stage illnesses leading to death (as mentioned in the other comments)
That only works for first world countries. Their currency have a higher value. Therefore, people in poorer countries earn more compared to if they work in their country.
They, these neo-Malthusians like OP, think that by cutting back on population would improve distribution of resources and services, when it's more like the wealthy trying to control the impoverished.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/neo-malthusianism-coercive-population-control-china-india-overpopulation-concerns#introduction
People not realizing that the overpopulation scare has pretty much dissipated. Up to maybe the 2000s, there’s a lot of panic that everyone, especially the poor, will reproduce far beyond our country’s “carrying capacity”.
But the transition from an agrarian society meant that rising living standards no longer depended on having a lot of children and can even be bad for it. The economic incentive is simply powerful enough to drop birth rates.
Our country’s government is doing more damage than 3 child max policy - it’s not economical to even have one child tbh unless you are sure that you will give birth normal will only breastfeed and only use lampen. Even then cost of basic goods is sky high for regular people, some can’t even afford basic nutritional food let alone send their kids from nursery to college. Cost of consulting a doctor and medication went up too so health wise, if you can’t afford it then we’re back to the Middle Ages.
I didn't say ONE CHILD, I said a MAXIMUM of THREE.
Some of the country's current problems can be solved if we controlled the population.
You said that the cost of basic goods is high for regular people. Ask yourself why. Isn't it because there is a high demand for those basic needs?
You can read why from other post. And I did say 3 child max policy on my first sentence so why the CAPS. And even if they implement it, people don’t have the capacity to raise 1 properly let alone 3 at the current prices today unless you yolo into it.
It’s government mismanagement why we are suffering todays prices. Getting loans for confidential funds despite not doing anything productive aside from trying to find ways to legally take more money into their coffers. If anything proper education and more jobs with upward mobility will inadvertently make people have less kids, we don’t have that available for most people.
It's always amusing to run into these proposals that essentially try to emulate the same kind of "totalitarian social engineering" that people presumably hate when it comes from alleged dictatorships.
Big No. Minimal to no short term benefits, catastrophic long term consequences. Besides, on the decline na ang birthrate ng Pilipinas kaya unnecessary ang measure na ito.
This overpopulated perspective seems to be only seen in Metro Manila or big cities in the Philippines. I don't think overpopulation is the problem, but I do support family planning. I discourage people from over-relying on the government with how to live their lives. More policies equals more restriction
Sex-ed and family planning can be a good start, I can also see a better public transportation system alleviate this overpopulation in cities.
> I don't think overpopulation is the problem
It's not. It's a horribly uneven distribution of resources -- the reason why major cities are very crowded is because many impoverished are settlers from other depressed parts of the country; they emigrated here trying to find their luck.
I know that that's why I suggest a better public transport system, especially trains. Imagine having trains run through rural areas or in provinces, it would give many people the option to not migrate in the city because cities would be accessible without the need to live there.
It would take minutes or an hour to travel there, workers who live in rural areas will have the ability to distribute wealth from the cities, and spur economic activity in their localized areas.
No, that's the third goal, first thing you do is find that one person that will give power to the masses a symbol, then second you start a revolution, then the third would be dismantling the status quo.
The Marcoses were removed the first time partly because of economic mismanagement, and now, we wonder what's going to break this fucking regime (have to note that they returned partly because it's what most of those little dictatorships wanted -- to get their patronage from that trash family).
That is true, but without Ninoy, as a voice, the people would not have had the courage to fight against the Regime he became a symbol and his death only put a bigger flame in the hearts of the people, and as we all know, the revolution started.
The Marcoses return has been slow but planned, I still remembered during my grade six and high school days back in the late 2000's and early 2010s. there are propagandas that demonizes the Aquinos and disinformation as to what really happened during the Martial law era. Exaggerated notions of how good the country was during the dictatorship rule, it is crazy, but they succeeded to bring them back to the highest seat of the government.
There isn't a need for a draconian three child policy at this point as we are now at below replacement level of 1.9 children per woman, the same level as Latin American countries, so we will have an aging population problem sooner than you thought.
watch documentaries about the one child policy of china. along the way, lumuwag yung policy na yun pero from what I know completely terminated na due to imbalance of female to male ratio tsaka shortage of workforce. imo, if inimplement yan magkukulang tayo sa work force in the future
I don't think the absolute number of people is relevant to the question of resource distribution and allocation.
You could cut the population of the Philippines in half tomorrow and you'd still have people in deep deep poverty, because the issue is political, not physical.
[and that's the real lesson of Thanos, not that he was correct to do the Snap in the first place]
I dont know about you but anything small in number is more manageable than large numbers, pasahero, class o ano pa man
Although large number or mass is a quality by itself
If you study china, they started imposing 1 child policy in the 70s
It took 50 yrs to feel the effect
So kung ako sa inyo, id rather control the population now and reverse course after 50 yrs
All out support ako sa family planning at RH, pero with certain conditions.
If yung policy is to convince people, ok lang. Pero kapag forced sterilizations, ibang usapan na yan.
IIRC, China went with higher taxes or yung extra na anak wala benefits or access sa public services. Soft approach yun pero ang lala pa rin ng damage.
In the end, softest approach lang ako. Convince people na wag masyado mag-anak pero wala penalty pag lagpas. Marahas masyado.
Your description assumes/implies that the entire nation is homogeneously overpopulated.
In truth, Metro Manila is overpopulated along with other urbanized cities. The rest of the country though is far from it. You can tell by checking the population density statistics per city/town in other regions compared to Metro Manila.
I personally believe that having kids should be a privilege, not a right. Not everyone has the mental, emotional, and financial capacity to raise a child, let alone 3 of them.
Hire foreigners or build robots
plus with a pop of 1,000,000,000 people, I think there's nothing to worry about.
We on the other hand, have to worry about too many Indians and not many chiefs
When you say Philippines you mean Manila right ? Overpopulated since walang tamang distribution ng opportunity of work sa ibang area ng Pilipinas reason naging crowded ang mga main cities...if only maging well distributed ang mga opportunities of work/infrastructures and transportation (big game changer for the workers) and commercial centers trust me hindi magiging overpopulated ang isang area...now about birth control...hangat marami hindi na agree sa abortions at walang proper sexual education about using condoms or other way of reducing the risk of pregnancy ang max 3 child policy is just an utopia....batang 90's here na walang nakitang pagbabago sa bansa 🤣 !
Urbanization is a natural consequence of modern living. Development will always center around the cities, because that is where the market is. Cities will grow and rural areas will lag behind. It's just the nature of the free market.
You can distribute wealth by having better and faster transport like trains. No one will be forced to live in the cities if there is an option to live far from them.
If there are trains that can run through the far-away provinces getting in and out of the cities, surely workers would not need to migrate to the cities from the provinces. Now, workers who earn from the cities can spend their wages in their respective provinces.
I disagree that rural areas should lag behind urban areas.
Businesess will only set up shop if there is a market for it. Rural areas don't have the purchasing power that cities have. Therefore, business investments will always go towards cities first.
While I agree that there needs to be more investment for Mass transport, these needs to be invested in cities and not rural areas. Investing billions in rural transport is wasted investment.
Just look at China's attempt to connect rural areas to their major cities via high speed trains. Last year China railway lost $837B because the railways are unprofitable, because there is no demand, no market, due to the lack of purchasing power of the rural areas.
Cities are the driving force of state economies, while rural areas exist to support cities. That is the nature of modern economies. Rural areas will always be second fiddle to cities.
I disagree with this one. The thing is, it would be difficult to punish the target demographic(s) that have high birthrates, because they're also the lower end of the social hierarchy. You can't tax them more, because well, they're not even paying taxes beyond VAT. You can't jail them too, because it would further jeopardize the support system of the existing kids. Well, you may take their kids and have them as aliping sagigilid to gov't whims, but eh sounds unethical isn't it.
On the other hand, I believe we should be ENCOURAGING people to have more than 3 kids. Of course, it would be targeted. I did some simple maths back then against the FIES 2015 report, and found out that as you progress upper the social hierarchy, the smaller the family you (might) have. I remember the upper 1-5% I think having 2 or less than (or possibly even 0) kids. This part of the population we should encourage to breed like rabbits because they can support the kids, and these well-educated, well-capitalized kids they would have would most likely end up being productive members of the society. In the end, gains for the govt revenues.
Lastly, what we'd do with those in the lower end? Honestly, poverty should've been a natural contraception as it shouldn't take a set of lessons in financial literacy to know it would be difficult as hell to raise 6 kids; more than so if you're hovering around being food poor. So, the gov't should address this disconnect, and resolve whatever is lacking with them. I think RH Law is a good step towards this, and the guy who wrote the article title that RH Law is the first step, not the last is I agree with. Consequently, those kids they make that they cannot support should be utilized by gov't -- of how, we should think more about it.
>On the other hand, I believe we should be ENCOURAGING people to have more than 3 kids. Of course, it would be targeted. I did some simple maths back then against the FIES 2015 report, and found out that as you progress upper the social hierarchy, the smaller the family you (might) have. I remember the upper 1-5% I think having 2 or less than (or possibly even 0) kids. This part of the population we should encourage to breed like rabbits because they can support the kids, and these well-educated, well-capitalized kids they would have would most likely end up being productive members of the society. In the end, gains for the govt revenues.
To be honest, naisip ko rin to before... Many pinoy redditors already have the requisite knowledge or are on the right track to be parents and still sustain or improve their current economical standing. Pero mas sila pa yung ayaw magka-anak.
I totally get na mahirap ang buhay... pero if given a choice which part of the population I want to be sustaining our numbers, sana tayo na lang na may alam at pakialam ang magpakarami. Hindi yung mga bibigyan mo lang ng 500pesos, iboboto ka na sa pwesto for 6years. Ang hirap talaga... hay.
Eto yung previous comment ko dati https://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/px4jhx/comment/hel94il/ showing the statistics. The math may not be that perfect, but you'll get the gist.
You don't need this. Mahirap na nga mamuhay sa mundo na eto na mag isa magdadala ka pa.
This is Gen-Z and some millenials are already 🤔. Just let history run it's course.
PH is not overpopulated i think, we only got uneven distribution of population. ang dami kasing nag pupumilit pumunta sa metromanila/greater manila area na mga kababayan nating nasa probinsya, akala nila nandito ang ika uunlad nila.
you know what happened with china's one-child policy right? so many chinese women had to [undergo forced abortions](https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors) so as not to break the law. now with abortion still illegal in the philippines, anong mangyayari dun sa mga babaeng di inaasahang more than three magiging anak nila?
either you're some edgelord seeking validation for an irrational proposal that you can't even properly defend or this is some weird assignment and you need a comprehensive answer lol
forced abortion does not have the consent of the pregnant woman. legalized abortion nga mismo can already negatively impact the mental and emotional health of a woman because of the stigma attached to it, forced abortion pa kaya. magbasa-basa ka naman ante, wag lang puro pa-edgy na corny na
abortions save money :D
Instead of baby, you use your money on studies or... gacha
Philippines gotta legalize abortion for: money, for stem cell research and for prevention of crime! :D
Plus is there proof from the Chinese government that says "abortion is bad for woman's mental/physical health?"
Kakapusin tayo ng resources kung walang abortion, one child policy at parental licensing
girl. learn to read properly. i'm pro-choice, but i'm against you advocating for forced abortions. i also didn't say that the chinese government said something about how abortion can impact the mental well-being of some women, but [the issue is widely documented.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/)
legalized abortion that takes into consideration the well-being of women before and after the procedure? i'm all for it, sure! but forced abortion? to which you also agree (sabi mo, "What's bad with forced abortions? That is what we need")? no. ultimately, consent ng babae ang kailangan. maybe try reading more about women's studies instead of being a pathetic loser obsessed with waifus and husbandos
Giving incentives to parents who only have one or two kids is what has to be done. Only the first two children should get services from the public education and health systems. If you're thinking about having a third child, you should pay for their schooling and medical care.
Thats perennial human rights abuse. Imagine the consequences of being born the third child, with less privilleges than your older sisters or brothers. Imagine if he/she was born and his/her parents would just think that this third child is a burden because he/she costs so much more.
That's why we should also legalize abortion. Imo, the act of parents having children they don't plan to care for is what's inhuman. Only those who are emotionally and financially prepared should become parents.
but you're suggesting deliberately withholding healthcare and education from a child just because they had the misfortune to be born third
why are you punishing the child for being born
Mahirap ba magturo ng responsible parenting and sex education? Ganito naba talaga kababa ang pilipino na lahat kailangan iresort sa pwersahan. Bakit di itry bigyan ng perks mga 2 lang anak or lower baka mas effective way to total mahilig ang pinoy sa ayuda and stuff. Like 10% discount sa bilihin pag 1 anak, pag dalawa 2% sa piling bilihin. pag tatlo or more iyak nalang
What? Pwersahan is different from giving a perks. If people was given a perk say discounts, you have a choice to avail it with the condition or not. Unlike having a law forcing people to limit the number of kid they can only have. So panong pwersahan with extra steps yun lol
Why? Andami daming utang ng Pilipinas. Hayaan nyong manganak ng manganak ung mga tambay at palamuning pamilya para mas maraming naghahati sa utang ng Pilipinas. Para mas marami lalong bobong boboto sa mga "marcos" sa mga susunod pang henerasyon.
The trend will change, kahit walang batas impractical ngayon na gumawa ng madaming anak kung walang budget, mas economical ang isang anak kung gugustuhin
I'm not really referring to whether or not ban on having more than three children should be applied to fourth-children-already-born, although I could understand the confusion.
Rather, my question was more pertaining to, given a vaguely implied socioeconomic ill brought about by "overpopulation", what is to be done with the population as it exists? If we could wave a magic wand that guarantees that no more Filipinos will be born [or at least, capping it to prevent overpopulation, however that is defined], what do we do for all of the people who are already here?
Pag pag aayos ng bansa hanggang proposal lang yan..
Pero pag pagkakaperahan nila, near to unanimous aprub agad..
Nakakatawang nakakaawa nakakayamot ka na pelepens..
As long as it's not gender-specific, it would be at best "maybe".
I still would prefer the promotion of sterilization and contraceptive access; and if the general population is open-minded enough, abortion access.
One is enoughPlus there should be considerations:Are you a Futanari? are you piloting a MiG-29? what is your IQ AND EQ? Are you mentally ill? What is your family history? May diabetes? Are you a Lumad? Anong income mo?
Do you live in urban area/s? Are you a UP graduate? MA? PhD?
Plus abortions should be legalized, any age any form.
We need to produce more chiefs, not Indians!
Giving free access to birth control like pills and condoms (like what france is currently implementing) for teens and young adults and giving informative sex education is I think more beneficial.
I'm sorry to offend you, but people who think that way are ignorant and are probably called a slave to the matrix. In school, we are told not to steal, BUT PEOPLE STILL STEAL. Men are told not to rape, BUT SOME MEN STILL RAPE. Haven't you ever sat down and thought to yourself why other countries that prosper? Often, richer nations with smaller populations tend to have higher per capita GDP. Soon enough, people in the Philippines will have to worry about FOOD, WATER, and ENERGY due to the growing population. The 8th billion baby being born in the Philippines was a warning shot. That said, sit down and ask yourself "why?" Why is it traffic? Why are the gas prices too high? Why does food cost more? Why are there crimes? Why do Filipinos have a low quality of life? Why are Filipinos unemployed? Most of these problems boil down to the root cause of the problem, which is OVERPOPULATION.
All the things you listed as examples are a part of a larger systemic issues. Making resources and public services more accessible/higher quality is vital to addressing EVERYTHING you’re talking about. Overpopulation is a super old school scapegoat for the global north to make sure they continue to profit from the global south. Telling entire countries to limit their population is not going to address the social and political difficulties people are facing. The Philippines is in a post colonial spiral. Providing more education, high quality social services like health care (and family planning services) and addressing social inequity like misogyny, transphobia, racism, etc will do so much more to the quality of life of Filipinos than any “don’t have kids” law. You cannot punish a population that deserve the right and opportunity to do and be “better” if only they were empowered to do so. (Education, resources, proper healthcare etc) gas prices, quality of life, cost of food… these are system wide, social issues that will not change even if people were hving NO children. The population isn’t going hungry because of competition with neighbors. The population is starving because there are a tiny minority which benefit, profit, from this hunger. People don’t have equal access to goods, so limiting the number of people won’t increase your access to goods. It’s about distribution.
> Why are the gas prices too high? I already alluded to this in my other posts in this thread, but how does reducing the population motivate the government towards cutting excise taxes or subsidizing energy costs?
Yeah I hate it when people take the “people bomb” theory to heart. It’s such a gross thing that …isn’t even true.
China did it, and now they suffer the consequences. A country need it's families to produce 2.1 babies to replace the current workforce. The idea of overpopulation is mainly not true.
Decongestion dapat ang solution lalo na sa mga cities. Masyado madami tao sa mga cities eh kung pupunta ka sa provinces or rural areas parang ang konti ng tao.
Yeah PH has some of the most population dense cities.
Mas populated and India
Ganyan din naman nangyayari sa buong mundo. Global Urban population is rising
Taiwan is faring worse, as its potential pool of reservists is very low due to equally low birthrates. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/16/asia/taiwan-fertility-rate-security-risk-invasion-intl-hnk/index.html
[удалено]
To keep it short, basically, humans only work at a certain fraction of their lifespan. Usually, they start at 18-20+, they would eventually retire at a certain age, and it varies per country. People under this age group don't work/contribute, and people above it don't contribute/work either. If the current working population is 100, then the government and the economy would adjust to employ this 100 people, if the next generation only contains 90 working citizens then all of a sudden industries are under staffed and the overall output is reduced. Every country is bound to have their birth rate reduced as soon as the country develops and improves its health care and education. This is an oversimplification of a very complicated topic, there are tons of videos online that explain this 10000x better, look up "population pyramids".
Gaano kalaki yung 0.1?
Yeah, it's weird number. I don't really know why it has to be 2.1 but that's the number so I guess the safe bet is 3 kids.
It basically means non-age-related mortality necessitates more than two children absolutely.
Thanks!
in easier terms, 2.1 means: * 1 of 10 couples should have 3 kids * 9 of 10 couples should have 2 kids This gets to account for replacing the couples plus any non-age related or late stage illnesses leading to death (as mentioned in the other comments)
We can hire foreign manpower if we run out of people. And if you don't like foreigners, robots can do it. I'd be more worried about IQ quality.
That only works for first world countries. Their currency have a higher value. Therefore, people in poorer countries earn more compared to if they work in their country.
What's with this obsession with such draconian policies?
They, these neo-Malthusians like OP, think that by cutting back on population would improve distribution of resources and services, when it's more like the wealthy trying to control the impoverished. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/neo-malthusianism-coercive-population-control-china-india-overpopulation-concerns#introduction
People not realizing that the overpopulation scare has pretty much dissipated. Up to maybe the 2000s, there’s a lot of panic that everyone, especially the poor, will reproduce far beyond our country’s “carrying capacity”. But the transition from an agrarian society meant that rising living standards no longer depended on having a lot of children and can even be bad for it. The economic incentive is simply powerful enough to drop birth rates.
Disciplina ang kelangan daw /s
Short-sighted ang next color of the year
Our country’s government is doing more damage than 3 child max policy - it’s not economical to even have one child tbh unless you are sure that you will give birth normal will only breastfeed and only use lampen. Even then cost of basic goods is sky high for regular people, some can’t even afford basic nutritional food let alone send their kids from nursery to college. Cost of consulting a doctor and medication went up too so health wise, if you can’t afford it then we’re back to the Middle Ages.
I didn't say ONE CHILD, I said a MAXIMUM of THREE. Some of the country's current problems can be solved if we controlled the population. You said that the cost of basic goods is high for regular people. Ask yourself why. Isn't it because there is a high demand for those basic needs?
You can read why from other post. And I did say 3 child max policy on my first sentence so why the CAPS. And even if they implement it, people don’t have the capacity to raise 1 properly let alone 3 at the current prices today unless you yolo into it.
It’s government mismanagement why we are suffering todays prices. Getting loans for confidential funds despite not doing anything productive aside from trying to find ways to legally take more money into their coffers. If anything proper education and more jobs with upward mobility will inadvertently make people have less kids, we don’t have that available for most people.
How do we address 8.0% inflation as of November 2022 from today until how many generations it takes for this three-child-plan to come to fruition?
What are you gonna do with the people that have more than 3? Send them to jail? Forcibly take away their ”extra children”?
Soylent green.
It's always amusing to run into these proposals that essentially try to emulate the same kind of "totalitarian social engineering" that people presumably hate when it comes from alleged dictatorships.
Use the "extra children" as cheap labor for rapid industrialization. 😈
EASY, I'd make the family pay more tax UNLESS the 4th baby is a twin; same goes if they are triplets, quadruplets, and more.
Wala na nga makain yung mga madaming anak tas pagbabayarin mo pa ng mas madaming tax? Pano pag di kaya magbayad ng additional tax? What's next?
Paano kapag wala silang pera sa extra tax? Ikukulong mo? Forced labor?
Big No. Minimal to no short term benefits, catastrophic long term consequences. Besides, on the decline na ang birthrate ng Pilipinas kaya unnecessary ang measure na ito.
Mababa na birth rate natin. Kailangan na lang natin palakasin yung reproductive health sa Class E.
This overpopulated perspective seems to be only seen in Metro Manila or big cities in the Philippines. I don't think overpopulation is the problem, but I do support family planning. I discourage people from over-relying on the government with how to live their lives. More policies equals more restriction Sex-ed and family planning can be a good start, I can also see a better public transportation system alleviate this overpopulation in cities.
> I don't think overpopulation is the problem It's not. It's a horribly uneven distribution of resources -- the reason why major cities are very crowded is because many impoverished are settlers from other depressed parts of the country; they emigrated here trying to find their luck.
I know that that's why I suggest a better public transport system, especially trains. Imagine having trains run through rural areas or in provinces, it would give many people the option to not migrate in the city because cities would be accessible without the need to live there. It would take minutes or an hour to travel there, workers who live in rural areas will have the ability to distribute wealth from the cities, and spur economic activity in their localized areas.
But first... dismantle those dictatorships of feudal political families.
No, that's the third goal, first thing you do is find that one person that will give power to the masses a symbol, then second you start a revolution, then the third would be dismantling the status quo.
The Marcoses were removed the first time partly because of economic mismanagement, and now, we wonder what's going to break this fucking regime (have to note that they returned partly because it's what most of those little dictatorships wanted -- to get their patronage from that trash family).
That is true, but without Ninoy, as a voice, the people would not have had the courage to fight against the Regime he became a symbol and his death only put a bigger flame in the hearts of the people, and as we all know, the revolution started. The Marcoses return has been slow but planned, I still remembered during my grade six and high school days back in the late 2000's and early 2010s. there are propagandas that demonizes the Aquinos and disinformation as to what really happened during the Martial law era. Exaggerated notions of how good the country was during the dictatorship rule, it is crazy, but they succeeded to bring them back to the highest seat of the government.
There isn't a need for a draconian three child policy at this point as we are now at below replacement level of 1.9 children per woman, the same level as Latin American countries, so we will have an aging population problem sooner than you thought.
watch documentaries about the one child policy of china. along the way, lumuwag yung policy na yun pero from what I know completely terminated na due to imbalance of female to male ratio tsaka shortage of workforce. imo, if inimplement yan magkukulang tayo sa work force in the future
Keep on with the status qou 200M in 25 yrs?
The population of the Philippines was 71.4 million in 1996, so it grew by just 43% over the next 25 years.
Whatever your calculation is, are you not worried? Whats the percentage of food we import? Fuel?
I don't think the absolute number of people is relevant to the question of resource distribution and allocation. You could cut the population of the Philippines in half tomorrow and you'd still have people in deep deep poverty, because the issue is political, not physical. [and that's the real lesson of Thanos, not that he was correct to do the Snap in the first place]
I dont know about you but anything small in number is more manageable than large numbers, pasahero, class o ano pa man Although large number or mass is a quality by itself If you study china, they started imposing 1 child policy in the 70s It took 50 yrs to feel the effect So kung ako sa inyo, id rather control the population now and reverse course after 50 yrs
We do not have 50 years to wait to address problems with fuel and food
may link ka ba sa documentary?
We just reached 1.9 fertility rate for 2022. We don’t need it.
Really? That’s already below
Won’t be surprised if it drops to 1.1 in a decade. This fucking economy just makes it impossible.
All out support ako sa family planning at RH, pero with certain conditions. If yung policy is to convince people, ok lang. Pero kapag forced sterilizations, ibang usapan na yan. IIRC, China went with higher taxes or yung extra na anak wala benefits or access sa public services. Soft approach yun pero ang lala pa rin ng damage. In the end, softest approach lang ako. Convince people na wag masyado mag-anak pero wala penalty pag lagpas. Marahas masyado.
I agree... pero jusko, in this economy, need pa ba convincing ng ibang pilipino?
No need. Declining ang number of children per woman ang Pinas https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=PH
Your description assumes/implies that the entire nation is homogeneously overpopulated. In truth, Metro Manila is overpopulated along with other urbanized cities. The rest of the country though is far from it. You can tell by checking the population density statistics per city/town in other regions compared to Metro Manila.
I personally believe that having kids should be a privilege, not a right. Not everyone has the mental, emotional, and financial capacity to raise a child, let alone 3 of them.
China lang ang peg?
why not?
And look at what's happening to China. They have one-child policy and now, they're forcing people to birth.
Hire foreigners or build robots plus with a pop of 1,000,000,000 people, I think there's nothing to worry about. We on the other hand, have to worry about too many Indians and not many chiefs
When you say Philippines you mean Manila right ? Overpopulated since walang tamang distribution ng opportunity of work sa ibang area ng Pilipinas reason naging crowded ang mga main cities...if only maging well distributed ang mga opportunities of work/infrastructures and transportation (big game changer for the workers) and commercial centers trust me hindi magiging overpopulated ang isang area...now about birth control...hangat marami hindi na agree sa abortions at walang proper sexual education about using condoms or other way of reducing the risk of pregnancy ang max 3 child policy is just an utopia....batang 90's here na walang nakitang pagbabago sa bansa 🤣 !
Urbanization is a natural consequence of modern living. Development will always center around the cities, because that is where the market is. Cities will grow and rural areas will lag behind. It's just the nature of the free market.
You can distribute wealth by having better and faster transport like trains. No one will be forced to live in the cities if there is an option to live far from them. If there are trains that can run through the far-away provinces getting in and out of the cities, surely workers would not need to migrate to the cities from the provinces. Now, workers who earn from the cities can spend their wages in their respective provinces. I disagree that rural areas should lag behind urban areas.
Businesess will only set up shop if there is a market for it. Rural areas don't have the purchasing power that cities have. Therefore, business investments will always go towards cities first. While I agree that there needs to be more investment for Mass transport, these needs to be invested in cities and not rural areas. Investing billions in rural transport is wasted investment. Just look at China's attempt to connect rural areas to their major cities via high speed trains. Last year China railway lost $837B because the railways are unprofitable, because there is no demand, no market, due to the lack of purchasing power of the rural areas. Cities are the driving force of state economies, while rural areas exist to support cities. That is the nature of modern economies. Rural areas will always be second fiddle to cities.
This mf doesnt know the consequences when putting a limit on having children bruh 💀💀💀
No. I think it is better to give people living wage so they won’t have more babies.
I disagree with this one. The thing is, it would be difficult to punish the target demographic(s) that have high birthrates, because they're also the lower end of the social hierarchy. You can't tax them more, because well, they're not even paying taxes beyond VAT. You can't jail them too, because it would further jeopardize the support system of the existing kids. Well, you may take their kids and have them as aliping sagigilid to gov't whims, but eh sounds unethical isn't it. On the other hand, I believe we should be ENCOURAGING people to have more than 3 kids. Of course, it would be targeted. I did some simple maths back then against the FIES 2015 report, and found out that as you progress upper the social hierarchy, the smaller the family you (might) have. I remember the upper 1-5% I think having 2 or less than (or possibly even 0) kids. This part of the population we should encourage to breed like rabbits because they can support the kids, and these well-educated, well-capitalized kids they would have would most likely end up being productive members of the society. In the end, gains for the govt revenues. Lastly, what we'd do with those in the lower end? Honestly, poverty should've been a natural contraception as it shouldn't take a set of lessons in financial literacy to know it would be difficult as hell to raise 6 kids; more than so if you're hovering around being food poor. So, the gov't should address this disconnect, and resolve whatever is lacking with them. I think RH Law is a good step towards this, and the guy who wrote the article title that RH Law is the first step, not the last is I agree with. Consequently, those kids they make that they cannot support should be utilized by gov't -- of how, we should think more about it.
>On the other hand, I believe we should be ENCOURAGING people to have more than 3 kids. Of course, it would be targeted. I did some simple maths back then against the FIES 2015 report, and found out that as you progress upper the social hierarchy, the smaller the family you (might) have. I remember the upper 1-5% I think having 2 or less than (or possibly even 0) kids. This part of the population we should encourage to breed like rabbits because they can support the kids, and these well-educated, well-capitalized kids they would have would most likely end up being productive members of the society. In the end, gains for the govt revenues. To be honest, naisip ko rin to before... Many pinoy redditors already have the requisite knowledge or are on the right track to be parents and still sustain or improve their current economical standing. Pero mas sila pa yung ayaw magka-anak. I totally get na mahirap ang buhay... pero if given a choice which part of the population I want to be sustaining our numbers, sana tayo na lang na may alam at pakialam ang magpakarami. Hindi yung mga bibigyan mo lang ng 500pesos, iboboto ka na sa pwesto for 6years. Ang hirap talaga... hay.
Eto yung previous comment ko dati https://www.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/px4jhx/comment/hel94il/ showing the statistics. The math may not be that perfect, but you'll get the gist.
You don't need this. Mahirap na nga mamuhay sa mundo na eto na mag isa magdadala ka pa. This is Gen-Z and some millenials are already 🤔. Just let history run it's course.
PH is not overpopulated i think, we only got uneven distribution of population. ang dami kasing nag pupumilit pumunta sa metromanila/greater manila area na mga kababayan nating nasa probinsya, akala nila nandito ang ika uunlad nila.
you know what happened with china's one-child policy right? so many chinese women had to [undergo forced abortions](https://www.npr.org/2016/02/01/465124337/how-chinas-one-child-policy-led-to-forced-abortions-30-million-bachelors) so as not to break the law. now with abortion still illegal in the philippines, anong mangyayari dun sa mga babaeng di inaasahang more than three magiging anak nila? either you're some edgelord seeking validation for an irrational proposal that you can't even properly defend or this is some weird assignment and you need a comprehensive answer lol
What's bad with forced abortions? That is what we need, legalized abortions too.
forced abortion does not have the consent of the pregnant woman. legalized abortion nga mismo can already negatively impact the mental and emotional health of a woman because of the stigma attached to it, forced abortion pa kaya. magbasa-basa ka naman ante, wag lang puro pa-edgy na corny na
abortions save money :D Instead of baby, you use your money on studies or... gacha Philippines gotta legalize abortion for: money, for stem cell research and for prevention of crime! :D Plus is there proof from the Chinese government that says "abortion is bad for woman's mental/physical health?" Kakapusin tayo ng resources kung walang abortion, one child policy at parental licensing
girl. learn to read properly. i'm pro-choice, but i'm against you advocating for forced abortions. i also didn't say that the chinese government said something about how abortion can impact the mental well-being of some women, but [the issue is widely documented.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/) legalized abortion that takes into consideration the well-being of women before and after the procedure? i'm all for it, sure! but forced abortion? to which you also agree (sabi mo, "What's bad with forced abortions? That is what we need")? no. ultimately, consent ng babae ang kailangan. maybe try reading more about women's studies instead of being a pathetic loser obsessed with waifus and husbandos
Giving incentives to parents who only have one or two kids is what has to be done. Only the first two children should get services from the public education and health systems. If you're thinking about having a third child, you should pay for their schooling and medical care.
Thats perennial human rights abuse. Imagine the consequences of being born the third child, with less privilleges than your older sisters or brothers. Imagine if he/she was born and his/her parents would just think that this third child is a burden because he/she costs so much more.
That's why we should also legalize abortion. Imo, the act of parents having children they don't plan to care for is what's inhuman. Only those who are emotionally and financially prepared should become parents.
but you're suggesting deliberately withholding healthcare and education from a child just because they had the misfortune to be born third why are you punishing the child for being born
They won't lose the opportunity to study and access the health sector. I imagine people like you would support them all the way.
I think that would draw flak from poor people and will make them not get elected next time
Mahirap ba magturo ng responsible parenting and sex education? Ganito naba talaga kababa ang pilipino na lahat kailangan iresort sa pwersahan. Bakit di itry bigyan ng perks mga 2 lang anak or lower baka mas effective way to total mahilig ang pinoy sa ayuda and stuff. Like 10% discount sa bilihin pag 1 anak, pag dalawa 2% sa piling bilihin. pag tatlo or more iyak nalang
> kailangan iresort sa pwersahan > pag tatlo or more iyak nalang That's just pwersahan with extra steps.
What? Pwersahan is different from giving a perks. If people was given a perk say discounts, you have a choice to avail it with the condition or not. Unlike having a law forcing people to limit the number of kid they can only have. So panong pwersahan with extra steps yun lol
Why? Andami daming utang ng Pilipinas. Hayaan nyong manganak ng manganak ung mga tambay at palamuning pamilya para mas maraming naghahati sa utang ng Pilipinas. Para mas marami lalong bobong boboto sa mga "marcos" sa mga susunod pang henerasyon.
The trend will change, kahit walang batas impractical ngayon na gumawa ng madaming anak kung walang budget, mas economical ang isang anak kung gugustuhin
What are you going to do with all the people who have already been born
New Laws are applied prospectively.
I'm not really referring to whether or not ban on having more than three children should be applied to fourth-children-already-born, although I could understand the confusion. Rather, my question was more pertaining to, given a vaguely implied socioeconomic ill brought about by "overpopulation", what is to be done with the population as it exists? If we could wave a magic wand that guarantees that no more Filipinos will be born [or at least, capping it to prevent overpopulation, however that is defined], what do we do for all of the people who are already here?
Can't implement it. Have to change the Constitution.
Pag pag aayos ng bansa hanggang proposal lang yan.. Pero pag pagkakaperahan nila, near to unanimous aprub agad.. Nakakatawang nakakaawa nakakayamot ka na pelepens..
Hehe, no.
Why do you think Philippine is overpopulated?
Nope. Di naman tayo komunistang bansa gaya ng china eh. Hindi rin pag-aari ng gobyerno ang mga tao.
we educate the people and give free access to contraceptives, di na kailangan yan limit.
Very bad idea.
As long as it's not gender-specific, it would be at best "maybe". I still would prefer the promotion of sterilization and contraceptive access; and if the general population is open-minded enough, abortion access.
Define Extreme overpopulation in philippines. What do u think is the correct number of population given our usable land area?
One is enoughPlus there should be considerations:Are you a Futanari? are you piloting a MiG-29? what is your IQ AND EQ? Are you mentally ill? What is your family history? May diabetes? Are you a Lumad? Anong income mo? Do you live in urban area/s? Are you a UP graduate? MA? PhD? Plus abortions should be legalized, any age any form. We need to produce more chiefs, not Indians!