Symbols of overpopulation

THE powers behind the RH Bill, the prime movers of all possible ways and means of contraception, including the multinational pharmaceuticals wallowing in corporate greed through the unlimited manufacture and wanton sale of all kinds of contraceptives, recently came up with another well-funded media spin.

With no qualms whatsoever in using the very symbol that they supposedly but deceptively uphold and protect, key representatives of said anti-natalist agents went to a hospital. There they waited for a baby to be born at the strike of the midnight clock. Immediately thereafter they used the tiny, innocent and helpless creature as a symbol of the 7-billionpopulation bomb. To somehow blur their base agenda, they heaped gifts upon the baby who was precisely supposed to stand as a bad omen for the Philippines and for the world as a whole.

 This was synchronized with other countries using the same portent symbol of a helpless baby regarded as the harbinger of the catastrophe of global overpopulation. Of course, they saw to it though that the mother was “plugged” as a matter of course to prevent her from further conceiving.

 If these anti-people characters are really convinced that hunger and misery merely depend on the quantitative growth of demographics, how do they explain the fact that there are under-populated nations that are in want while there are other much populated countries that have enough? Why is it that there are people in different parts of the earth with supposedly well-controlled population, but now are staging escalating rallies on account of economic imbalance and deprivation—such as at Wall Street?

There must be something else that makes nations affluent or miserable other than simplistically finger-pointing at demography. Population can either be the backbone of an economy or the curse of development. Quite glaringly, there must be something else that makes the difference between the affluence and misery of people. To claim that the number of population alone is blessing or damnation, is too naïve a conviction to take intelligently. Why is it that much populated China is an economic giant while there are scarcely populated areas in Africa that have been long suffering from grave and lasting want?

 Specifically in the Philippines, why is it that there are certain families that are wallowing in wealth while a big number of Filipinos are drowning in misery? Why is it that public officials are synonymous with luxury while the common citizens are burdened by scarcity? Why is it the political dynasties are so rich that they no longer know where to hide their money while the electorate that make them making pitifully remain impoverished?

 There is something in these questions that demolish the myth that socio-economic development—or absence thereof—merely depends on material population count. But using a baby-symbol to drive home the message of a supposedly impending population bomb is already anachronistic—and wrong.