Right family size = better quality of life

Time and again, poverty is at the forefront of wild debates and heated discussions. Just like the debates among religious leaders, however, as to what denomination paves the right path to heaven, there is no end in sight as far as the identification of poverty alleviation approaches that may be deemed effective and appropriate. While the more conservative sectors opined that good governance is the key to prosperity, the more radical groups are batting for population control through the use of contraceptives as the more logical way of addressing the menace. Consequently, proponents of the contraceptive's use and the leadership of the denomination as well as its supporters that oppose it are at logger-heads, all the time, in the slightest of provocation.

Recently, the animosities escalated on account of the brave and unprecedented support of the president on the RH Bill that gives couples the freedom of choice. Demonstrating the Roman Catholic hierarchy's usual dictatorial tendencies, they threatened to excommunicate the president for such support. Whether for show or something else, a congressman, likewise, cautioned the president of a possible impeachment if he signs the bill into law should it passes the two houses. Whether it is possible considering that impeachment shall be initiated by the same congresses that pass the law, let's set aside this inconsistent remark momentarily. 

Indeed, though poverty alleviation is their common objective, their approaches are oceans apart. With such unavoidable disparities in points of view, conflicts or disagreements naturally pervaded. Nonetheless, before we delve further into their animosities, let us objectively dissect the very root of their disagreements. Actually, it all boils down to the government's position to give couples the freedom to use either the natural or artificial birth control methods in determining their appropriate family sizes. In these issues, the government's and the country's catholic hierarchy's positions are similar, except that the former encourages the use of contraceptives while the latter strongly emphasized abstinence from sex.   

The so-called pro-life advocates or anti-contraceptive backers even went further by entertaining some thoughts that there is no need to curb population. They are emphasizing that countries with bigger population than us are, obviously, enjoying better lives. Therefore, they alleged, that being plenty has no direct correlation with poverty. 

Before new threats of excommunication and people power or impeachment will even again float in the air, let us go deeper into our misconceptions about population per se. In this regard, I have to reiterate some facts about population in my previously written columns for emphasis and clarity. Standing alone as a statistic, population data is nothing but an incomprehensible assembly of numbers. In 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that the Philippines is the 12th most populous country in the world. Ahead of us are, (1) China - 1,313,973,713, (2) India-1,095,351,995 (3) USA - 298,444,215, (4) Indonesia - 245,452,739, (5) Brazil-188,078,227, (6) Pakistan - 165,803,560, (7) Bangladesh - 147,365,352, (8) Russia- 142,893,540, (9) Nigeria - 131,859,731, (10) Japan - 127,463,611, (11) Mexico - 107,449,525.

If the number of inhabitants in a country is the sole determinant as far as poverty incidence is concerned, then, the United States of America and Japan should not just be hungrier than us but should be among the hungriest countries in the world today. The reality is an absolute "NO". The answer is simple. With their vast land area, naturally, they will have more residents or bigger population.

The more logical question, therefore is are they crowded? Population-wise, this is the most relevant statistics. Coherently, the better statistics should be the data that reveals the fewer number of people for every square kilometer in a given country. This information is called density. 

So, where are we as far as density is concern? With 292.86 per square kilometer, we ranked 26th overall. Notably, better off countries like Monaco ranked 1st with 16,205 per square kilometer, and Singapore followed with 6,386.29. Bahrain is in 5th with 1,035.44 per square kilometer, South Korea is in the 11th place. Starving countries in the list includes Bangladesh in 6th and Sri Lanka in 23rd. The United States of America is 124th.

If density or the level of congestion in a country is a principal barometer on poverty incidence, then, Monaco and Singapore, the most densely populated countries should have higher incidences in this regard. But no, they are among the world's richest countries. 

If the bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences, then more relevant information is necessary to understand this crisis we are in. Such significant information is family size.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].