Life (whether that of a natural being or a juridical person) consists of several pockets or compartments of decision-making processes. Decisions are made on concerns as trivial as to what dress to wear in a party or on serious issues that may address life and death choices. No matter how trivial it may be, however, the fact remains that everything goes through, knowingly or unknowingly, a decision-making process.
There are more structured approaches though in the decision-making process. Though several authors may have different approaches, the decision-making steps have remained seemingly similar. McMahon, for one, figured out seven effective ways in going through the decision making process. He (McMahon) emphasized that when faced with a difficult decision, these steps can be taken to ensure that the best possible choice will be decided.
Logically, therefore, when one is faced with family issues, business proposals or when an elected official (whether local or national) is addressing a delicate situation, he/she or collectively as a team must go through the usual decision making steps to bring about best choices of actions.
The first step is “to outline your goal and outcome”. This affords the decision makers the opportunity to know exactly what they are trying to achieve or accomplish.
The second step is to “gather data”. This step enables the decision makers to have actual evidence to help them come up with a solution.
The third step is to “brainstorm to develop alternatives”. Certainly, a “thought-showering” session, this step enables the decision makers to come up with several choices or possible courses of actions to see which one can actually work.
The fourth step is “listing the pros and cons of each alternative”. With the list of advantages and disadvantages for each alternative evaluated, solutions or alternatives that present more disadvantages can be eliminated, thus, decision making will be a lot easier.
The fifth step is “making the decision”. Once you analyze each solution, you should pick the one that has many pros, and the one that everyone can agree with.
The sixth step is “to immediately take action”. Once the decision is picked, implementation should follow immediately or probably, in accordance with the best timetable, depending on the circumstances.
The seventh step is to “learn from, and reflect on the decision making”. This step allows everyone to see what was done right and wrong as the decision was implemented and put to use.
These steps are so simple to follow. Surely, if a decision goes through with these steps, chances are, such choice can stand on its own and speaks for itself regardless of vehement opposition. The same can be said of decisions made by families (as an economic unit) too. Unfortunately, however, though it (the family) is an economic unit and, therefore, their decisions shall have far reaching consequences, they seldom think of their national or global implications. Sadly, in fact, to some extent, they never think of their families’ well-being.
For instance, economic decisions such as whether to work here or abroad, in what school are they going to send their kids, whether to rent or buy a house are done at the family level. With this mindset prevailing, these kinds of couples/individuals tend to limit their number kids so they can responsibly and comfortably raise their families.
On the other hand, some families simply have different economic agenda. They look at kids as income producing properties. So that, they dwell purely on a very stupid equation, the more kids = more hands to earn for them. Worst, they even try figure out earning more with very little investment. They just let the mothers breastfeed the kids until they can walk, then, send them to the streets to beg.
What makes matters worst is, this bunch of couples/individuals truly felt that what they have decided to do have sound backing from the so-called pro-life advocates. The same pro-life advocates or anti-contraceptive backers who have entertained the thought that there is no need to curb population because some countries that are bigger than us (population-wise, like the USA) are, obviously, enjoying better lives.
Therefore, they alleged, that being plenty has no direct correlation with poverty. To some extent, it sounds right. However, knowing fully well that USA’s land area is many times bigger than ours, logically, their population should be bigger.
By the same token, 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 too.
Frankly, most of us have wrong perceptions. The, fact is, bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences. What truly relates to poverty incidences is family size.
Truth to tell, despite the level of congestion in countries like Monaco or Singapore, the average number of children per family in these countries is just about two. More often, some are just happy with one kid. Due to limited space, they are living in world-class tenements even comparable to what we popularly referred to us “high-end condominiums”.
Clearly, in these progressive countries, the common denominator isn’t their sheer number of residents or the density factor of their population. Apparently, these countries have kept their family sizes at manageable levels.
Learning from these countries’ experiences isn’t difficult. Understanding their ways of managing their families isn’t incomprehensible too. Having manageable sizes of families simply bring about positive consequences. Obviously, taking care of dozen children is so different from taking care of just two. The parents can spend quality time with their kids and can handily remember their birthdays and immunization schedules.
In a very manageable family size, the wives or mothers benefit the most. They can find jobs or do more productive chores apart from taking care of the kids. With all these preoccupations, women will try to space their pregnancy or most probably just be contended of having a few. With both parents doing productive undertakings, families’ needs would be handily and responsibly taken cared off.
However, as more and more couples are rendered jobless, they just make it a preoccupation to have more babies. Also, most families tend to breed more kids, so that, there will be more warm bodies to send to the dumpsites to collect recyclable garbage or simply having more hands to work as meagerly paid farm workers, or, worst, to have more appropriately dressed kids to beg in the streets.
Clearly, therefore, having the right family size is a matter of fiscal responsibility. If one is a billionaire, then he can be like Solomon because he can afford to give better lives to a hundred children. On the other hand, if he is a pauper, for heaven sake, he must not think of having more kids to have more hands to soon bail him out of poverty or, worst, take sex as his favorite past time.
The problem, therefore, is in our problem-solving ways. We are not wanting in ideas in this regard. The RH Bill, which offers both natural and artificial methods, could be a good start to finally solve these debilitating poverty incidences.
Indeed, both natural (abstinence from sex) and artificial (use of contraceptives) methods are supposedly available. While abstinence is mutually acceptable to both the government and the catholic hierarchy, everyone knows that this option is downright ineffective. Even the Catholic hierarchy, the staunch proponents of abstinence from sex, is totally and honestly aware of its ineffectiveness. Straightforwardly, some of them (despite their solemn vow) cannot even abstain from it.
For your comments and suggestions, please email to foabalos@yahoo.com.