Another thing that was mentioned in the article was the debated statement about the use of contraceptives and other laws about managing the population; examples of which are two-child policy, population education, etc. Well, there is nothing wrong about implementing such rules and laws because it can truly help in the supervision of population but with these strict regulations it can also affect the economic status, e.g. like when China prompted the two-child policy it was a success at first but after a few years that it has been approved flaws started to appear -- such as the demise of their society because of the decline of the working class or workers. So there really must be a balance in the population and how they control it. I found that the debated statement about the use of contraceptives and birth control programs are both agreeable and displeasing but that is just for my own standards, well that's because if we apply the concept of using contraceptives and birth control programs it is beneficial to the control of having a "population boom" but when the time comes that the country is in need of a labor force we cannot have enough workers; the only thing we just need is balance because too much of a good thing is bad.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Reaction to the article: "About Montalvan"
The article mainly talks about how population is related to the economic status in which a country, specifically speaking the Philippines, has. For me, it has no relation at all, since some countries have high population structures and still they're very productive in terms of there economic status, such example is China (specifically speaking the kind of situation they have now). The Philippines, as we all know, is a poor country but trust me it has nothing to do with our population, well maybe a little bit, but instead it is affected by how the government is leading this country, for the fluctuation of our economic status is in their hands. The population has very little effect on the economic status we are having now, and the one whom I blame the most is the government, because they are held responsible, for it is there duty to make our country productive with the help of the people, of course.
Well, about Malthus' theory -- in which I consider is negligible -- is so prejudiced because it only implies to those people who are on the lower class, the "commoners" as we may presume, even though the rich and elite people are not affected they must also be accounted for because they are also part of the society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment