This time, after receipt of their proper cue, key representatives of said anti-natalist agents went to a hospital. There they waited for a baby to be born. Immediately thereafter, they used the tiny, innocent and helpless creature as a symbol of overpopulation. To somehow blur their base agenda, they heaped gifts upon the baby who is precisely supposed to stand as a bad omen for the Philippines, for the world as a whole. They saw to it though that the mother is “plugged” – as a matter of course – to prevent her for conceiving.
If these anti-people characters are really convinced that hunger and misery merely depend on the number of population, how do they explain the fact that are under-populated nations that are in want while there are other much populated countries that have enough? More. Why is it that there are people in different parts of the globe with supposedly well-controlled population, or now however staging long and loud rallies on account of consequently deprivation – such as at Wall Street?
There must be something else that make nations affluent or miserable other that their population alone. Population can either be the backbone of an economy or the curse of development. This being the case, there must be something else – than population alone – that makes the difference between the affluence and misery of people. To claim that the number alone of population is a blessing or damnation, is a too simplistic conviction to take intelligently, seriously. 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?
Questions: 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 ho and where to hide their money while the electorate making them such infallibly remain impoverished? There is something in there questions that demolish the myth that socio-economic development – or absence thereof – merely depends on material population count. What?