A Filipino can consume 2 sacks of rice per year

[Mike Ortega Ligalig]

By Joe Espiritu
Jagna-based Writer

What caught our eye last week was a news item titled “Rice self sufficiency to be decided in the bedroom”. It brings us to the theory of Thomas Robert Malthus, an English economist ant political scientist who wrote the Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. The essay states that the growth of population tends to increase faster than the supply of food. Some other economists rephrased the statement to read that population growth is inversely proportional to the increase of food supply. Which is rightly so.

According to statistics, at 2006, there are already 85 million Filipinos. Each one consumes 115 kilograms or two sacks of rice per year. This number consumes 30 thousand tons of rice of rice per day. With a population growth of 1.95% in 2040, this 85 million will become 142 million Filipinos. The 1.95% growth or almost 2% is perhaps observed in urban or semi urban areas. In the boondocks it may be even twice higher. Imagine how much those 142 million souls will consume. For a short time that was in 1903 we were producing enough rice for ourselves. Several factors, principally population growth wiped out that situation. We bred sturdy, heavy producing, fast growing, early maturing and disease resistant rice varieties. In short we revolutionized rice industry.

In the late 70's, this knowledge, irrigation and Green Revolution made us again self sufficient in rice. In fact we were exporting this cereal. Again nature took over. Now we are importing rice. The irony is that, in the late 60's and early 70's the Philippines had been teaching Thais, Burmese and other East Asian people how to grow rice. Now they are exporting tons and tons of it to us.

Our obstacles in rice production are geographic, demographic and implacable. There are few river deltas to be converted to riceland. There are also too few lands to be successfully irrigated. Then proportion of rice consumers and rice growers are drastically altered by the proliferation of the former and the reduction of the later through urban migration. Not only that demands for lebensraum would make inroads into rice growing space.

The El Niño pattern cannot be avoided. From time to time, droughts lasting several months cause bad or no harvest at all. Rain fed paddies will be arid, even irrigated lands were affected. The required buffer stock of 350 thousand sacks will last only several days. Corn production cannot fill the gap. Fortunately, the rural population could be able to subsist on corn, cooking bananas and root crops but the urban folks will feel the pinch. We have to increase our rice imports to feed the people.

One answer may be the increase of overseas employment. But that is no solution. We have experienced brain drain. The best of our professionals are serving people of developed countries when their services are sorely needed here especially in the rural areas. There will be disruption of families. Fathers, mothers, husbands, wives go abroad, Families are broken up. No amount of dollars remitted will take place of parental guidance.

There is no other recourse but population control. It is not only the government that will have to encourage this program but also religious authorities. Man cannot exist as soul alone it must also have body. Then we cannot be all saints when the stomach is empty. No soul can remain pure if the body is starving to death. We hope that the theory of Thomas Robert Malthus will not come to pass. However, mathematical facts are starting to prove him correct. The Church has to review her stand on population control in the light of modern thought.

[TUBAGBOHOL.com]

We Filipinos must learn to appreciate root crops which are more nutritious and delicious than rice.

[hubag bohol]

I honestly believe that this is a stupid article, on several points. To anyone who disagrees, please post your arguments here.

[islander]

i do.  the first paragraph alone raised my eyebrows to the 7th floor. 

(i wish to chew this article point for point tomorrow.  i'm way past bedtime now.)

goodnight, tb netizens!

[Lorenzo]

i do.  the first paragraph alone raised my eyebrows to the 7th floor. 

(i wish to chew this article point for point tomorrow.  i'm way past bedtime now.)

goodnight, tb netizens!

good morning na isles!

[hubag bohol]

We Filipinos must learn to appreciate root crops which are more nutritious and delicious than rice.

Bitaw, naay kamote, ubi, gabi, balanghoy, to name a few...

[hubag bohol]

Kamoteng tapol. Tam-is jamo ni...

[hubag bohol]

Gabi, or butig? Lami ni isagol sa linat-an...

[hubag bohol]

He he, kalami ani...

[hubag bohol]

Kamoteng kahoy. Mao ni himoon nga...





 

[islander]

i realized that the article was written some 5 years ago.

has the writer changed his mind?  i have no way of knowing.  just the same, for purposes of discussion, here goes...

[Lorenzo]

Kamoteng kahoy. Mao ni himoon nga...





 

wow ! kahibalo ka mo luto ani, Bai Hubag?

[islander]

By Joe Espiritu
Jagna-based Writer

What caught our eye last week was a news item titled “Rice self sufficiency to be decided in the bedroom”. It brings us to the theory of Thomas Robert Malthus, an English economist ant political scientist who wrote the Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. The essay states that the growth of population tends to increase faster than the supply of food. Some other economists rephrased the statement to read that population growth is inversely proportional to the increase of food supply. Which is rightly so.

i realized that the article was written some 5 years ago.

has the writer changed his mind?  i have no way of knowing.  just the same, for purposes of discussion, here goes...

but it isn't rightly so.  man tends to produce more than he can consume.  the problem is in the distribution of food, which from the looks of it no bedroom can solve.

there is no correlation between economic development and population growth, according to nobel prize winning economist simon kuznets.   in his study, he compared population growth rates and economic growth rates of a group of countries over a hundred years.  he found just the opposite of what malthusian theory leads one to believe.  historical data instead showed that population growth is a positive factor in the economic development process.

[islander]

also, the united states, england, hongkong, and other countries became rich during unprecedented growth in population, according to sheldon richman of CATO institute in his testimony on international population stabilization and reproductive health act.

richman further stated that the most densely populated nations are among the richest.  “There is no population problem.  Population growth is the result of the plunging death rate and increasing life expectancy worldwide.  That is progress.”

[islander]

according to a report of the united nations food and agriculture organization, every nation has the capacity to feed its people well.

[The world] currently produce(s) enough food to feed the world 3 times over.  Even if no extra advances in agricultural technology were made this means that we could feed a population of over 19 billion people, assuming as well that no extra land was brought under cultivation.  Even the most pessimistic neo-malthusians do not predict this kind of population increase. (http://pseudonymous.hubpages.com/)

[islander]

as for malthus, whose theory has been debunked many times over, he is regarded by some modern social scientists as an apologist for a corrupt system.  for a reason; his time was the 1700s, when feudal lords and aristocrats regarded themselves as god's gifts to europe.

[hubag bohol]

Quoting Malthus to prop up an argument on the issue of population growth is indicative of the intellectual sophistication of a college sophomore.

[islander]

well, at least one can take comfort in the fact that one is no longer a freshman.

[islander]

the article in this thread was written in 2007; the following excerpt from a 2011 article by another author may explain why there's more to things than what we know. 

In the late 70's, this knowledge, irrigation and Green Revolution made us again self sufficient in rice. In fact we were exporting this cereal. Again nature took over. Now we are importing rice. The irony is that, in the late 60's and early 70's the Philippines had been teaching Thais, Burmese and other East Asian people how to grow rice. Now they are exporting tons and tons of it to us.

Yes, Thai agriculturists studied in UP Los Baños. But no, our country did not fail to benefit from scientific knowledge.  In fact, the growth in rice yield in the Philippines in the last 10 years (2.19% per year) is faster than the growth rate in Thailand during the same period (1.68% per year).  Our average rice yield in 2009 (3.59 t/ha) is higher than that of Thailand (2.87 t/ha).  -EUFEMIO T. RASCO JR.  Executive Director, Philippine Rice Research Institute, October 29, 2011, 7:44pm, http://www.mb.com.ph/)

[islander]

We have to increase our rice imports to feed the people.

the u.s., despite its land size, imports its staple, wheat.

in 2007/08 (about the time espiritu's article was written) the u.s. had large stocks of wheat, so it was able to boost its wheat exports with a peak of 30 percent of the world's total.  it was also during this period that the u.s. dollar depreciated by 25 percent, thereby reducing the price of u.s. wheat compared to other major wheat-exporting countries.

by 2011, the u.s. ranked no. 12 as a wheat-importing country.  fluctuations in production, such as what we have with our rice production caused by a myriad of reasons, weather included, and currency value and other market forces obviously make their mark on the world's staples.  our rice supply is no exception.   
 
a rich country may not even produce enough wheat to feed itself at certain times, so it imports.  is that supposed to be wrong?