Every single country in the world that the people live in is important and each country has its own nature and significance. The United States of America is known as the most powerful country and many other countries support America. These countries become America’s alliances. The Philippines is one of its alliances. The Philippines have certain factors that make it known. Some of this is the so-called “wonders of the Philippines.” An example of which is the Banaue Rice Terreces that were created by the Ifugaos The presence of the Chocolate Hills is also a wonder in this country. The beaches are also famous in the Philippines.
The Philippines have great beaches wherein foreigners tend to sit often. Even if there are many things that could be praised in the Philippines, it has also issues that are known to the world. Its corruption is one of those issues that is known bout the Philippines. Another issue is its population. The population is an important factor in a certain country or place. Population could give a positive or a negative outcome depending on how it is utilized. Some countries make certain measures to make sure that the population would not be causing a problem On the other hand; others do not give much empha
Even if the government is planning to adopt such this kind of law, many people are against it especially the Church. If the population were not provided with the right amount of food, they would be malnourished. There is also a positive effect regarding the increase in the population.
Future researchers should focus more on the methods and implementations that will help on lessening the Philippine current population rather that concentrating on other topics. The environment has different aspects. 6 deaths for every 1000 population (http:www. It is much colder here compared to the lower land areas. Around 40 percent of those people who are poor have been able to study in elementary, while only 10 percent of the families were able to send their children to study in high school (www. Overpopulation could also lead to congestion.
Some topics in this essay:
Census Statistics, Philippines Philippines, According Jose, Commission Population, Filipinos Church, Metro Manila, United America, , increase population, rapid increase, Chocolate Hills, rapid increase population, Rice Terreces, philippine population, death rate, country population, positive negative, people living, continuous increase,negative effects, family planning, negative effects increasing, effects increasing population, increase population lead,increase philippine population,
Overpopulation has become an enormous crisis facing society today. Overpopulation is distinguished by the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area’s carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can’t be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources, or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones, and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if its current human occupants are clearly degrading the long-term carrying capacity of an area, that area is overpopulated.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their
Dolan believes that an increase in population will not lead to an ultimate decline in the standard of living of humans. Also, scientists further this notion by bringing up the fact that humans, in much the same way as cancer, produce toxic metabolites. Simon believes that there is no population crisis and no environmental crisis that is due to the rapid growth of humans. We must learn to take care of the natural resources and be aware of the fact that we, as humans, will continue to reproduce and our population will continue to grow.
Such a massive and still increasing population, combined with the environmentally detrimental repercussions of industrialization, as a result of the need to sustain such a large population, namely pollution from fossil fuels, has begun to take a serious toll on our planet”tms ecosystem. In conclusion, I believe that we must all work together to be able to live in a better environment and have a better quality of life. This meant that at some point human beings would experience a scarcity of land, food and jobs, leading to “human misery and catastrophe” (Southwick 159).
” (Dolan, 69) In short, Dolan believes that humans can decrease overall pollution while still growing in overall population. Some scientists have likened the effects that human population growthhas had on the earth to the effects of cancer on human beings (Southwick 161). Similarly, poor living conditions and sanitation, especially the lack of clean water, leads to serious outbreaks of disease.
In addition, “advances in agricultural and industrial technology have effectively increased the size of the globe over the last two centuries, in terms of the maximum population which it will support. For many families in poverty conditions, children are essential for the overall family’s survival; more income is needed that comes with more children working. These effects in turn lead to increases in hunger and malnutrition.
Some topics in this essay:
Dolan Dolan, Soviet Union, Human Perspective, Paper Overpopulation, Warren Hern, Principle Population, Simon Simon, Agricultural Revolution, Edwin Dolan, population growth, Malthus Anglican, standard living, carrying capacity, reasonable standard living, reasonable standard, health care, human population, disease famine,southwick 161 scientists, poverty disease, food jobs, rich nations overpopulated, growth human, especially third world, human population growth,
Population growth rate: 1.903% (2011 est.)
Definition: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries. Source: CIA World Factbook – Unless otherwise noted, information in this page is accurate as of July 12, 2011 http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/population_growth_rate.html
Indeed the population of the Philippines is expected to increase at a rate faster than that even of India. Implications for the Philippines
Will The Philippines be one of a handful of countries to achieve “least-developed” status by the year 2050? There are no doubt some who will argue that the continued unchecked population growth being experienced by the Philippines is actually a blessing. Certainly it is one of the few countries that has failed to sustain any form of population policy – a consequence both of the extreme poverty experienced in much of the countryside as well as the political influence of certain religious groups who remain adamantly opposed to any form of birth control. Indeed with a number of regions – Japan and Europe most notably, facing declining populations and the United States continuing to grow largely through immigration, there are some who may see advantage in the Philippines being the baby factory of the world.
But is that really what the country wants? Taking the range of projections provided by the latest data, the population of the Philippines in the year 2050 will (according to the United Nations) probably lie in the range between 154 million (high estimate) to 103 million (low estimate and based on a declining birth rate). The median predicted value is a population of 154 million. But do these figures tell the whole story? Probably not. Certainly with regard to the Philippines, the latest population data from the world body may have under-estimated the problem facing this country. Each of the scenarios modeled in the latest survey data assume that the Philippines will follow the rest of the world in implementing population policies that will lead to a declining rate of birth – the only questions then being when will it occur and how fast will that decline be?
According to the data published by the United Nations, at the end of 2000 the population of the Philippine stood at 75.7 million. The population growth rate stood at 1.79 percent (annual), fertility rate (children per woman on average) at 3.18 and the crude birth rate at 2.53 percent In absolute terms, the population number given by the United Nations certainly accords with the official figure published by the (Philippines) National Statistical Coordination Board, which gives the population as of mid 2000 at 76.498 million. However the rate of population growth as determined from the National Census over the past thirty years is at variance with the UN data and in recent years the disparity is quite marked population at 82.7 million.
Indeed it would appear that by end 2003, the population had already reached the level predicted by the international survey for 2005. That is not an insignificant margin of error. The population increase expected over a fiveyear period – actually occurred within three years! Against this information, the projections cited above almost certainly underestimated the future growth trend of the Philippines. Without a significant – and long-term – reduction in the birth rate, the Philippines will face a population that by the middle of the century exceeds 210 million people. Unfortunately this is not an item that appears on the national agenda.
A population that is increasing more rapidly than expected also impacts on the broader demographic data not least of which is the median age of the population. While under the more modest growth scenarios the Philippines population ages from a median of around 21 years at the present time to around 35 years, under the high growth scenario the median age of the population hardly moves – only to 25 years. This means the Philippines is not only stuck with a rapidly growing population but it will remain a young population.
The implications in terms of education and the demand for other social services including water and sanitation are equally alarming. Yet with such a young population, the broader tax base that comes with a rising median age will not be there to finance these demands. The population density currently stands at around 275 persons per square kilometer but could rise to as many as 700 if the worst-case scenario is realized. This possibility has immediate implications for agricultural policy and the need for rational land use and higher value-added cropping. Without such policies the poverty level – and political unrest– will be far worse than it is at present.
Already the Philippines is starting late in the day. Other Asian countries, including most of the Philippines’ Asean neighbors have already adopted prudent population and industry policies to control their populations and to implement growth strategies that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of their people. Thailand for one is now reaping the benefit of policies started back in the sixties. The Philippines stands out as the exception to the rule in this regard and it is a policy stance that the country’s present political and economic elite can only ignore at the risk of jeopardizing the future of the country.
http://www.philippinesforum.com/resources/research/files/PBLSR040216_population.pdf As shown at the outset of Chapter 1, the population of the Philippines is growing at the very high rate of 2.36% per year. At this rate, more than 5,000 people are born every day in a country where the number of poor people has increased by more than four million since 1985 [M92].
The population is projected to reach 111 million by 2015. Population growth in and of itself is not a problem if resources are available to cope with the additional people requiring public services, employment, housing, and so on. But in a country where the budget is already stretched and where poverty is high to begin with, population growth becomes a major issue.
The links between rapid population growth and persistent poverty have been well established. Rapid population growth hinders development for two 96 Poverty in the Philippines: Income, Assets and Access
interrelated reasons. First, because it reduces growth in per capita incomes and thus savings, it reduces the funds available for investment in productive capacity. This underinvestment in turn reduces overall economic growth and prospects for poverty reduction. Second, as population growth outpaces the capacity of industry to absorb new labor, urban unemployment and rural underemployment are compounded.
In 2003, the Philippine economy generated 566,000 new jobs, of which 60% were in the services sector. Despite this job creation, unemployment levels rose because the job market was inundated with 624,000 new entrants (ADB Asian Development Outlook 2004).
The larger the family, the more likely it is to be poor. Table 34 shows poverty incidence by family size for 1997 and 2000, and the two are very strongly correlated. Orbeta (2002) reviews the empirical evidence to show that high fertility is associated with decreasing investments in human capital (health and education). Children in large families perform less well in school, have poorer health, lower survival probabilities, and are less developed physically. The problem is one of resource dilution, where each additional child means a smaller share of family resources including income, time, and maternal nutrition.
Orbeta (2002) further shows that larger family sizes in the Philippines are not the result of rational choice among the poor. Surveys including the APIS66 have shown that the poor have more limited access to family planning services, lower contraceptive prevalence rates, higher unwanted fertility, and higher unmet needs for family planning. The author’s conclusion is that subsidized family planning services for the poor must be an integral component of any poverty reduction strategy.
Balisacan and Tubianosa (2004) undertook cross-country research to quantify the direct effects of population on economic growth, social services, and labor force participation in the Philippines. The Philippines and Thailand were similar in terms of both population and GDP per capita in 1975, but by 2000, there were 13 million more Filipinos than Thais. Total fertility rate (TFR) in Thailand had dropped to 1.9, while it remained at 3.6 in the Philippines. At the same time, by 2000 GDP per capita in Thailand had grown to 8 times its 1975 rate, while the Philippines’ GDP per capita was only 2.6 times higher.
The empirical analysis shows that population is not the only cause of the poor performance of the economy, but it is the most significant one, ahead of corruption, for example. In an interesting exercise, the authors assess what the monetary savings in education and health would have been, had the Philippine population growth pattern followed that of Thailand. The authors find that P128 billion would have been saved in the education sector from 1991 to 2000, while P52 billion could have been saved in the health sector from 1996 to 2000.
The Government’s new MTPDP 2004–2010 has been criticized for not articulating a clear population policy. Instead, it presents only a target: that population growth will slow to 1.98% per year by 2010. The NEDA response to this critique states that the population policy of the plan is based on responsible parenthood, respect for life, informed choice, and birth spacing (NEDA, 2004). This is insufficient. The Government, with strong donor support, should scale up family planning education and services. Innovative mechanisms and clear messages promoting contraceptive use are needed, because access does not automatically result in use, as reported in the 1999 APIS.
The data shows that nearly 90% of married women aged 15–49 had access but less than 40% were actually practicing family planning. Population policy should not concentrate too narrowly on contraception alone: women’s rights, reproductive health, and education are also critical elements of the population-development equation. Rather than a singular focus on married couples, heightened emphasis should be placed on informing, educating, and providing access to adolescents and youth.
The 1998 and 1999 APIS questionnaires included a series of family planning and maternal care questions–but only for married women. These were removed from the 2002 APIS for an unknown reason.