RSS Feed

We are not overpopulated

Posted on

The Philippines today has a population of more or less 90,000,000 individuals. Through the years, mass media have been sounding the alarm that the country is on the brink of disaster due to an unchecked population.

But is the country —or for that matter, the whole world— really overpopulated?

Below is an excerpt from a report by the prestigious Population Research Institute:

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world’s population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66′ x 66′ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard — and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it’d basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There’s plenty of space for humanity.

RH bill peeps, think again. You are being exploited by the conspirators against life.

The Philippines, as well as the whole world, is not overpopulated as what you are made to think. Don’t let Metro Manila’s congested and polluted cities fool you. What you see is congestion, not overpopulation. Travel around the country, and see for yourselves the truth. There is just an imbalance in the natural order of things.

To state it more clearly: the rich have notoriously more than what they really need; the poor, lesser. That is the enemy.

Click here for more info!


17 responses »

  1. Eventually we will be.. think about it. We are not the only living thing around in this world. You want to know how philippines is in comparison to Australia?

    AUSTRALIA POP – 22,484,146
    LAND AREA – 2,941,299 sq mi

    PHILIPPINES POP – 91,983,000
    LAND AREA – 115,831 sq mi

    i think you can see the obvious.. Even if there is enough space for us. The important matter here is the resources that we need to live..


  2. We are indeed NOT overpopulated. How can it be when most countries around the world have replacement rates below 2.1? Some countries even pay their citizens to have children because they realize that their very economy is in danger when there is not enough population to support it.

    We are overly congested especially in the urban centers, but definitely NOT overpopulated.


  3. Uruja_ganja, you are comparing apples and oranges. Don’t forget that much of the area of Australia (the Northern Territory and the large central area east of Perth) is not even populated.

    Also, don’t forget to look at the figures in context. Yes, there are 90,000,000 Filipino citizens. Yet, how many of these live in the Philippines. We have several family members here in Canada that have Filipino passports but also have Canadian citizenship and own houses and are raising families here (they are never going back). How many are in the USA? The middle east?

    This is something that should be called on the population propagandists.

    Also, there is another sad angle. The USA is barely keeping there population stable and is only doing so through immigration. The American people themselves are contracepting themselves out of existance. The same goes for Japan. Japan was an economic powerhouse 25 years ago but is today a country of senior citizens. Most of their manufacturing has moved to China.

    Sadly, the Philippines is one of the poorer countries in Asia. Even sadder, is that the economy has a great dependency on expatriates sending money home to their families. We know people who send money to families in the Philippines (where the parents earn little or none at all) and support them and educate their children. This is widespread and the money trickles up the economy to the pay cheques of people such as Ana Santos and Carlos Celdran. If the RH crowd gets their way what will the Philippines be like in 30 years? There does not exist the industry and wealth that Japan had 25 years ago and no one is going to immigrate to the Philippines to make up for the loss of people. The Philippines would be in the very bad position of being a poor country with an elderly population with few young people to support them.


  4. I strongly disagree.

    El desierto del Sahara es inhabitable, también el desierto del Gobi, nada puede crecer allí, también Atacama y el gran desierto Australiano, ni en Arizona

    Las coordilleras surgidas por el plegamiento alpino, no son practicables, cultivables ni habitables en sus 1000 ó 2000 ó 3000 ultimos metros, dependiendo de su altura: Himalaya, Andes, Alpes, Pirineos.

    El casquete polar Antártico es inhabitable por frio, y las rígurosas temperaturas hacen que la población que puede mantener la Siberia rusa se ínfima.

    Tampoco son practicables las zonas pantanosas.

    Las gráficas de población mundial muestran un crecimiento con pendiente constante hasta el 1500, entonces la pendiente se acelera, pero siguiendo una ecuación recta hasta el 1800, entonces se convierte en gráfica en una curva exponencial.

    Sinceramente no creo que una población mayo del doble de la de 1900 sea viable a largo plazo, hemos crecido demasiado rápido, que no demasiado, estamos en lo que se llama una “burbuja vital”, que al igual que las económicas tendrá que pinchar para asegurar la viabilidad del planeta. Eso supondría unos 3200 millones de habitantes.

    No se trata de vivir, se trata de vivir con dignidad.
    No obstante las piramides poblacionales muestran que la población mundial empezará a dismuir a mediados del siglo XXI. No solo Europa, sino paises como China y Sudamerica muestran una disminución de la natalidad que a medio plazo

    Puedes ver las estadísticas aquí:

    Son realmente interesantes para comprender sociologia.


  5. Sir, anong batch po kayo sa Adamson?


  6. I would like to add that this is alarming in that I cannot think of any western country that is distributing contraceptives free of charge in an effort to cull the population.

    Also, Malaysia and Indonesia both have much higher birthrates than the Philippines yet there has been no movement to curb their population.

    I would like to add some musings by the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn:

    Palestinian grandmother Fatima Omar Mahmud al-Najar gave birth to her first child at the age of 19. She had eight others. She had 41 grandchildren. Keep that family tree in mind. By contrast, in Spain, a 57-year old woman will have maybe one grandchild. That’s four grandparents, one grandchild: a family tree with no branches.

    For example, I wonder how many pontificators on the “Middle East peace process” ever run this number:

    The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years.

    Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a “moderate Palestinian” leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation — or pseudo-nation — of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the “Palestinian problem” that doesn’t take into account the most important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.

    Likewise, the salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia is that they’re running out of babies. What’s happening in the developed world is one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history: most of us have seen a gazillion heartwarming ethnic comedies — My Big Fat Greek Wedding and its ilk — in which some uptight WASPy type starts dating a gal from a vast loving fecund Mediterranean family, so abundantly endowed with sisters and cousins and uncles that you can barely get in the room. It is, in fact, the inversion of the truth. Greece has a fertility rate hovering just below 1.3 births per couple, which is what demographers call the point of “lowest-low” fertility from which no human society has ever recovered. And Greece’s fertility is the healthiest in Mediterranean Europe: Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2, Spain 1.1.

    As I say, this isn’t a projection: it’s happening now. There’s no need to extrapolate, and if you do it gets a little freaky, but, just for fun, here goes: by 2050, 60 per cent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, with papa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta down an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs. As Noel Coward once remarked in another context, “Funiculi, funicula, funic yourself.” By mid-century, Italians will have no choice in the matter.

    Which brings me to our second Jill: the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first woman to run a national division of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Kate gave an interview to The New York Times revealing what passes for orthodoxy in this most flexible of faiths. She was asked a simple enough question: “How many members of the Episcopal Church are there?”

    “About 2.2 million,” replied the Presiding Bishop. “It used to be larger percentage-wise, but Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations.”

    This was a bit of a jaw-dropper even for a New York Times hackette, so, with vague memories of God saying something about going forth and multiplying floating around the back of her head, a bewildered Deborah Solomon said: “Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?”

    “No,” agreed Bishop Kate. “It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.”

    Here’s the question for Bishop Kate: if Fatima Omar has 41 grandchildren and a responsible “better educated” Episcopalian has one or two, into whose hands are we delivering “the stewardship of the earth”? If your crowd isn’t around in any numbers, how much influence can they have in shaping the future?


  7. More from Mark Steyn:

    Let’s start in the most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet. In Japan, the rising sun has already passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began in which the country had more deaths than births. Japan offers the chance to observe the demographic death spiral in its purest form. It’s a country with no immigration, no significant minorities and no desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling.

    At first it doesn’t sound too bad: compared with the United States, most advanced societies are very crowded. If you’re in a cramped apartment in a noisy congested city, losing a couple hundred thousand seems a fine trade-off. The difficulty, in a modern social democratic state, is managing which people to lose: already, according to the Japan Times, depopulation is “presenting the government with pressing challenges on the social and economic front, including ensuring provision of social security services and securing the labour force.”

    So what will happen? There are a couple of scenarios: whatever Japanese feelings on immigration, a country with great infrastructure won’t empty out for long, any more than a state-of-the-art factory that goes belly up stays empty for long. At some point, someone else will move in to Japan’s plant.

    And the alternative? In The Children Of Men, P. D. James’ dystopian fantasy about a barren world, there are special dolls for women whose maternal instinct has gone unfulfilled: pretend mothers take their artificial children for walks on the street or to the swings in the park. In Japan, that’s no longer the stuff of dystopian fantasy. At the beginning of the century, the country’s toy makers noticed they had a problem: toys are for children and Japan doesn’t have many. What to do? In 2005, Tomy began marketing a new doll called Yumel — a baby boy with a range of 1,200 phrases designed to serve as companions for the elderly. He says not just the usual things — “I wuv you” — but also asks the questions your grandchildren would ask if you had any: “Why do elephants have long noses?” Yumel joins his friend, the Snuggling Ifbot, a toy designed to have the conversation of a five-year old child which its makers, with the usual Japanese efficiency, have determined is just enough chit-chat to prevent the old folks going senile. It seems an appropriate final comment on the social democratic state: in a childish infantilized self-absorbed society where adults have been stripped of all responsibility, you need never stop playing with toys. We are the children we never had.

    And why leave it at that? Is it likely an ever smaller number of young people will want to spend their active years looking after an ever greater number of old people? Or will it be simpler to put all that cutting-edge Japanese technology to good use and take a flier on Mister Roboto and the post-human future? After all, what’s easier for the governing class? Weaning a pampered population off the good life and re-teaching them the lost biological impulse or giving the Sony Corporation a licence to become the Cloney Corporation? If you need to justify it to yourself, you’d grab the graphs and say, well, demographic decline is universal. It’s like industrialization a couple of centuries back; everyone will get to it eventually, but the first to do so will have huge advantages: the relevant comparison is not with England’s early 19th century population surge but with England’s Industrial Revolution. In the industrial age, manpower was critical. In the new technological age, manpower will be optional — and indeed, if most of the available manpower’s Muslim, it’s actually a disadvantage. As the most advanced society with the most advanced demographic crisis, Japan seems likely to be the first jurisdiction to embrace robots and cloning and embark on the slippery slope to transhumanism.


  8. Sec 3 on Guiding Principles of the Reproductive Health Bill stated at paragraph e: The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.

    Is it because the rate of increase of number of lives to be sustained, to the increase of amount of resources that could provide sustenance, is higher?

    I agree that our material resources are limited as everything in this world is limited right from the beginning. Back to thousands of years earlier than 2000 years ago, did the people live in a situation of abundance of material resources for sustenance? Sustenance for material resources was derived merely from gathering and hunting. Was that abundance compared to today? Even during the later period, when agriculture became the technology for material resources sustenance, there was yet no such mass movements to suppress population growth. There were those who lived with enough. But there were those like the rich and powerful kingdoms who conquered other territories of other kingdoms and slaughtered or enslaved the vanquished and looted their resources as a means to sustain the conqueror kingdom. They lived then, as if resources for them was limited. From those events, was there actually a shortage of material resources at that time? Or was it more of fear due to greed? Was the behavior of people then, towards the share of material resources any different from that of now? The technology then, was mass murder of the living.

    Today, the same fear of limited resources is gripping us. Yet, inspite of all the supposedly more advanced technology for material resources sustenance of the world, why is it that not all families can have food available for them? How is it that today, we can have one family who, aside from owning long chain of supermarkets and large tracks of lands, could very well afford to feed each member of that family of say 12, the quantity equivalent of more than one hundred meals at three times a day if they could accommodate that much in their stomach? Is this amount, not more than the equivalent of three good meals a day for 70 families with 12 children each? Is this amount of food not excess? Yet how is it that today, there are families who could afford to eat that much quantity of food, while there are families of 6 children who could not eat three adequate meals a day? Is this not greed causing hunger?

    Some of those who belong to such families who could well afford to be fed more than a hundred meals in one mealtime if their stomach could accommodate that much, have blamed families who could not afford to have three meals a day to be lazy. Have they not seen family members who had to labor 12 hours a day to be able to eat two times a day everyday because that is the only capability they have as a result of the business of this well-fed family members which: control markets; have contractual policies; have oppressive compensation policies; or which have been displacing small retailers from the areas they have established their own giant businesses? Is this the general result of greed or laziness? Is not the RH Bill then promoting greed for blaming high population growth as cause of hunger while ignoring greed as the cause? Or is it promoting laziness for providing easy instant artificial technology to an imbalance of nature which can be corrected by a long and hard working natural developmental process?

    By having the same fear and technology for material resources sustenance of many of the powerful people back in the period of more than 2000 years ago, this time is it not a more subtle technology which the bill is promoting RH or Replicating Herod?


  9. yeah, we are overpopulated actually. The RA’s would say that we should just redistribute the land to correct this imbalance.


  10. Pingback: Celdrán’s antics are no longer repulsive « FILIPINO eSCRIBBLES

  11. Hiya, I’m really glad I’ve found this information. Today bloggers publish only about gossips and internet and this is really annoying. A good site with exciting content, this is what I need. Thanks for keeping this site, I’ll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Cant find it.


  12. I fully agree. The Philippines is not overpopulated. To justify their false claims that Manila is overpopulated, some biased television news directors and writers (who were influenced by fat envelopes from a group that is pushing the controversial unconstitutional, anti-life Reproductive Health Bill) often use the densely populated parts of Manila and sections that are crammed with poor families who have more than six children to justify their ILLOGICAL claims. When President Quezon saw Manila was becoming densely populated in the mid 1930s, he created a chartered city that was named in his honor (Quezon turned down the suggestion, but Alejandro Roces, Sr. insisted and convinced that it be named Quezon City). He was the one who gave the idea that a circumferential road be constructed to shorten the distance between northern and southern Manila; it is now Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). Its first name was 19 de junio (Rizal’s birthday) and was renamed later on by the Americans as Highway 54. President Noynoy (one of the supporters of the RH Bill) should imitate the mind of a great Spanish mestizo like Quezon. But he does not have such a mind; and his Atenean classmates are but spoiled brats like him.


  13. Overpopulation is bull**** ride a plane and then look down, or just visit bulacan and see how so much space is left – you see, the problem is that people are getting fooled by this “propaganda” that we are poor because there’s just too many of us. There’s no way we can control the increase because modern medicine is so much better than it was, increase in number is inevitable. What is not being answered is what is government doing to reform itself. Government should stop complaining. Reforms, rid your ranks of grafters before you start passing the blame you idiots!


  14. you are all idiots. the only thing that matter is ARABLE LAND (assuming you don’t even care for the life of other animals and plants, and just humans).

    if you divide the amount of arable land in the world, by the population of the world, and exclude the rainforest that are left in Africa and South America, you get about 30x30m per person, and that is for all their food, clothing, housing, medicines, etc. hardly enough. the only reason we are supporting the population as it is, is because of industrial farming (eg, oil). if/when oil fails, you will all starve to death. all resources will get more expensive with oil. only stupid poor people make babies. backwards evolution. there is little hope for the future. humans act and live like pigs, both rich and poor alike. they will live like pigs until nature demands they die like pigs. i would never bring a child into this world. there is nothing good in this world for intelligent humans, until all humans begin to live in harmony and balance with nature.


  15. Hello there, You’ve done an excellent job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends.

    I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this website.



Please share your thoughts about this article.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: