About Montalvan

KRIS-CROSSING MINDANAOThey’re at Malthus again
By Antonio J. Montalvan IILast updated 01:19am (Mla time) 07/10/2006
Published on page A15 of the July 10, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

I AM REFERRING TO THE ANTI-LIFE AND ANTI-family advocates who seem not to run out of clever ways to insert their Western-based agenda into every conceivable legislation they can think of. Now they would have 21 bills of various concerns consolidated into an omnibus law covering reproductive health, population policy, two-child policy and sex education for the youth. Of the bills, at least three promote the use of artificial contraception in the guise of promoting “women’s health.”

These advocates have turned a valid societal concern into a euphemism for their real agenda-population control. If they really want to address women’s health, why is there no attempt to include Senate Bill 319? The bill seeks to ban abortive drugs and devices. The bills exclusion gives away outright the sinister intentions of the advocates.

The basis of their arguments of course, is the erroneous belief that a decline in population means economic growth and development. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English demographer from 1766-1834. It was he who introduce the rather pessimistic principle that foresaw the world’s population out running food supply, leading to decrease food per person.

To check population growth, Mathus advocated, among other solutions, what we called “moral restraint and vice.” This population control strategy called for the late marriage and sexual abstinence; but is also advocated infanticides, murder, contraception and homosexuality. But there’s the catch in the Malthus proposal: these solutions would apply only to the poor and working classes. In the Mathusian argument, only the lower social classes would assume social responsibility for societal ills.

Since then many have misinterpreted Malthus, even overlooking other aspects of his argument. For example, there are those who ignore for the fact that Malthus himself, even as he pressed for population control, stated that we cannot denigrate man’s capacity (he called it power) to increase food supply.

Those who do cling to Malthus’ theory up to this day misinterpret not just for his thought. In there vain desire to adopt the western culture of licentious behavior in the name of freedom and self-determination, they have put up their own smokescreen to keep them from seeing a succession of various scholars and students that have effectively debunked Malthus since 1960’s. At least one such study, published in 1966, was not only a pioneering initiative at that time; it gaves its proponent a Nobel prize honor. Since then, up until 1990’s and the present, a progression of other studies has only pointed to the emerging reality: there just is no population bomb.

Not only that, countries that have been lured by the Malthusian myth into running a “successful” population program now have to address the grim reality of diminishing human resources. Japan, Germany and Italy are now in the throes of the so called “ demographic winter.” The governments of Russia, Singapore, South Korea, and Bulgaria are now offering incentives to encourage childbearing in the attempt to curb population decline.

Yet here in the Philippines, anti-life advocates-usually pikon when criticize despite the fact that they have access to the legislative powers-that-be-cling to an out-of-touch, outdated and archaic thinking that even their Western gods have failed to prove in their respective countries. The advocates seem not to hear the alarm bells ringing in countries where the demographic winter has set in, countries that are now repentant at having toyed with Malthus theory.

Why the recalcitrance on the part of our anti-life advocates? There clearly a colonial agenda here that is tied to Western purse strings. These agenda-makers may not be obtrusive with their presence. It is even possible that some advocates are aware of them or have not yet notice them. But I won’t be surprise if there lurks in the shadows such anti-life giant octopuses as Planned Parenthood, whose tentacles may have spread far and wide to influence Philippine legislative efforts.

Population control is simply not the solution to poverty. The Philippine population control program, in place since the 1970’s and funded by billions of pesos of public money, has brought down the population from 3.08 percent during the period of 1960-1970 to 2.36 percent during the period 1995-2000. Despite the population decline, however, poverty incidence has not been reduce significantly. Clearly then, there are other factors that are not being address. Try curbing graft and corruption, as we expects legislators to do.

The proposed bills are premised on the belief that we are poor because we are too many. Fewer births may (or may not) mean less expense for a family, depending on its priorities. What is certain however, is that less births means less people for the labor force in the next 20 years. Higher population densities do not necessarily translate into lower personal income. We have certainly seen this in thickly populated areas that exhibit higher incomes and greater economic activity (the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog, Cebu, Davao, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea; as opposed to Bolivia, Kenya, Ethiopia, which have lower density but also lower personal income)

Finally, when must we put a stop to the use of the term “reproductive health” which, in international forums, is simply a catch-all jargon that includes abortion; but which local advocates have repeatedly denied? The attempt to redefine a term that has become part of an all-encompassing political definition is a lame method of deceit and dishonesty.
* * *
Comments to monta@cu-cdo.edu.ph

What to do:
Make your reaction to the article. (50 pts.)
The deadline for the submission of your reaction will be on August 3, 2008 (Sunday) @ 5:00 p.m.
Submit your reaction through this blog