disclaimer (just to be sure): i am no economics student. these ideas are entirely based on how i see things in our society today. if you think that i am generalizing too much, and you indeed have proof, feel free to correct me in the appropriate way. at this point, i have to admit, none of my thoughts are based on any academic studies, however, to me, they are valid because some of them have been the topics of our discussions in class and how reality is being exposed to me. i don't wish to patronize any class of society. if you think i do so upon reading this post, it's all up to you to judge me that way. but please bear in mind that i don't have any bad intentions whatsoever.
long post. my apologies.
let me get this straight. most of our economics and other social sciences classes (even theology) have again and again explained that the problem with our country is not that we are not financially rewarded, but it's because of the wrong (or as some extreme idealists would say) maligned/ perverted distribution of wealth. facts (and of course i wouldn't go against this) show that people belonging to the high society comprise at most 5 percent of the total filipino population. the middle class, if i remember it right, comprise 30-35 percent. and the lower class is the biggest of them all, with 60-65 percent. okay. as i said, i wouldn't argue with that. but...
here's the thing... if say the lower class practice birth control and the highest class would propagate more, then it would gradually balance things out, right? perhaps there would be less members of the high society because some of them might be demoted to the middle class (at most probably, the upper middle class) but, there would be lesser poor people too.
for some publicly unknown reason, the rich people don't propagate a lot. okay, there are some rich families that are huge, but come to think of it, most of them are from the old rich. at least for our generation, the ayalas, zobels, tantocos, the lopezes, even the cojuancos are getting rarer and rarer. see, there aren't even any ayalas and lopezes (that i know of, or at least are legitimate) that are of my age (tough luck. if i'd want to end up with any of them, i'd have to be either a pedophile or have a may-december affair, because they're either too young or too old).
in order to possibly explain why the rich people are not a lot these days, here are my theories:
1. they are too busy working to have sex (sige na. malay mo nga naman).
2. they practice a lot of safe sex (of course, for those who indeed have adulterous relationships, they wouldn't want to get caught, just to not get in to trouble, sex without pregnancy is always the goal).
3. when they get married, most of them are already too old to have babies. (usually, for the mama's boys, they find it a lot of difficulties to look for girls who would be easily accepted by the moms. or maybe, there are girls who back out last minute because they are having a hard time dealing with the future in-laws. or for the girls, their dads might be too strict)
4. they could no longer maintain their sanity with one spoiled brat. (what more if they added another?!) if you have seen the 'use condoms' tvc from belgium (i think)--the one in the supermarket, you'd know what i'm talking about.
5. when they get to have a son, they are already more or less satisfied. (think china. plus, because the male superiority complex is still popular here, they still prefer male children, so the story ends when they get males.)
6. exclusivity. (think social clubs. especially with regard to population, they hardly believe that the more the merrier). just look at how tall the walls of their houses are, you'd know they are tend to be very individualistic. of course, not knowing the entire community would only lead you to mingle with the people you know.
7. the "merge with the rich families" culture. most of the rich people hardly expand their interests (and sometimes, you cannot blame them). it wouldn't be a surprise that the children of the rich families are to marry the children of the other rich families (most of them even arranged). okay, let's give a more specific example. the jackie ejercito-beaver lopez marriage. of course we all know that the ejercitos are rich, as well as the lopezes (duh!) now, if they didn't end up together, and they ended up with other relatively less wealthy people, there would be more people who would benefit from their wealth. say jackie ended up with a certain juan, then beaver ended up with a certain maria, then even the families and the future families of juan and maria would benefit from their (ejercito's and the lopez's) wealth. also, come to think of it, the children of jackie and beaver would no longer monopolize the wealth of both of the said families. in reality, however, rather than having two additional families becoming richer, it now deduces to merely one. clans don't really increase, come to think of it. (excuse my inability to appropriately and clearly articulate this idea).
8. not a lot of rich people believe in the traditional interpretation of the bible nowadays. okay, according to the traditional church, the main motive for sex is to procreate however, i learned (in fr. dacanay's marriage and sexuality theology class) that sex is indeed for expression of love. of course, he still couldn't dismiss the procreation side of the story. what i am trying to say is that unlike the blind believers of christianity/ catholicism, some of the rich people believe that they can still have sex even if they don't really wish to procreate. they are still entitled to that physical need anyway. and because (i personally think this is practical) they still want to express their love while proper family planning, they practice safe sex. (and i personally think too that these people are more exposed to the western culture which strongly believes in such ideas. and these are the cultures that have fewer and fewer population, and i guess the rich people gets to see the benefits of this kind of set-up).
9. security. of course, the more kids they have, the more kidnap victims there would be, and the more their wealth gets deducted.
10. most of the rich people are careeristic in nature. in singapore, for example, women prefer not to have kids than men. (could you actually believe that?!) many women don't want to be merely housewives nowadays. due to liberalization, they prefer to work their ass off (perhaps also to secure their own financial welfare just in case their husbands/ partners leave them, considering how broken marriages are very popular nowadays). most of these women prefer to practice their education in professional fields where they feel they get more compensation and gain more self-worth than spending the whole day taking care of the family (not that i am saying i am for this idea).
11. liberal thinking leads to openness to other genders. (mind you, there are a lot of gays and lesbians that belong to the upper class. think coutouriers)
12. practical thinking. the less children, the less expenses.
13. a lot of them no longer believe in marriage. why? maybe because some of them don't really value family lives. considering that a lot of these people are not really close with their families because perhaps of their parents' frequent unavailability.
14. too much preoccupation. of course, they can afford to burn their time going to all the possible places they can go to, playing all the possible sports in the world, doing all the possible recreational activities that they want to. aside from school or work, they also have problems to worry about (not as difficult as "where on earth would they get the money to support themselves and their families", but rather possibly as superficial as "what clothes should i wear tomorrow?" or to as similarly difficult as "how can i be a good member to the family?"--these are still problems nonetheless). they too have non-material related problems.
15. connected with theory number 7: reputation. considering tthat these are the same people that are featured almost daily on the periodicals, they have to be aware of how the people think of them. reputation really matters. in a circle of society where there are limited number of people, gossips and rumors can be easily spreaded. and a tarnish to a member's reputation would sometimes even lead to the destruction of the entire clan's reputation. so, in order to keep their reputation good in the eyes of everyone, they avoid bending rules of the high society's norm. one of them including rubbing elbows with members of the lower societies (except for charity reasons), more so with getting romantically engaged with them. that great at stake, these people really do think twice with who they mingle with and what they do in their lifetime.
now, we go to the lower class. my theories on why (probably) they tend to procreate/ propagate more:
1. unemployment leads to boredom. boredom, most of the time, leads to more sexual activities. as (perhaps) a recreation, sex is by the way costless. (of course, with their wives/ partners).
2. not a lot are willing to sacrifice a certain portion of their budget to birth control methods. (for most of them, they'd think, 'why buy condoms when i can't even feed my family thrice a day?')
3. their (both voluntary and involuntary) ignorance on birth control methods and the idea of family planning. see, again the church plays a role here. clearly (as we have studied in my present theology class), most of the poor people rely on their faith so much (because they think that that's the only thing they have.) they are religious. the problem however, is that their faith is mostly blind (meaning they don't tend to critically think of their faith. they merely follow the rituals, traditions, and what the pulpit speakers say without questions).
4. their blind faith still leads a lot of them to think that sex is entirely for procreation. (see previous number's explanation).
5. their belief that the more they are, the merrier they can be. because they cannot afford to get themselves preoccupied with sports, hobbies, etc., their definition of fun would be within the company of the family members (which is, i should say, quite a humble thought).
6. the collective culture they practice in their community. in poorer communities, you'd notice that they tend to familiarize themselves with their community, and most of the members of these communities are huge. perhaps more relationships are being built and more romantic/ lustful relationships develop.
7. still hanging on to the machismo culture. therefore, more sex enhances their masculinity.
8. a lot of them still believe in marriage.
9. (this may come out rude, but...) some parents sell their kids as slaves, laborers, or as sex objects for pedophiles. i remember having seen some documentaries that prove this to be true. yes, it's sad, more like depressing. these parents would rather stay home, watch television, and make their children work than they do it on their own. some would reason out that children more easily get jobs because capitalists would rather hire them (for reasons that children cost these companies cheaper salaries, they are easy to scare, they are more naive, and they can be easily satisfied). they are also sadly true. some just make their kids the breadwinners because the parents are just too indolent. or some, just because what the parents earn are not enough to provide for the family's basic needs (which don't even include education). therefore, some of them procreate a lot.
to sum it all up, here are my suggestions:
1. if the church still pushes with the "sex for procreation" idea, talk to the right target market--the rich people. please be sensitive enough to understand and to accept that increasing the poor people's population would not make them rich, rather would even encourage them to sell their kids to help their families survive out of desperation. and of course, you would agree with me that that is one immoral act. so, wake up and realize that safe sex and birth control would do a lot more good in this country than denying them.
2. everything is not the fault of the rich, nor the poor. can you blame the rich if some of them indeed deserve what they're getting and the same goes with the poor? sure there are people that don't deserve what they have in life, but not all. therefore, stop generally blaming the rich and the poor.
general idea: enforce the rich to procreate more, and the poor to procreate less.
if my theory is proven to be correct, then what we would be having is: the rich becomes more, and the poor becomes fewer.
this might get too controversial, but think about it: aren't most a lot of the catholic countries third world?
there are harsh realities that we have to accept.
still, in spite of what i have said, it will be of big help if government officials would be less corrupt and the catholic church would no longer feel the need for authority, and accept its role as merely a spiritual guidance, without the expectations of the government going for all of their recommendations.
