http://www.asiaone.com/News/Mailbox/Story/A1Story20121011-376985.html
Letter from Straits Times reader, Osman Sidek
If indeed this increase is required to support our ageing population, wouldn't that generation itself grow old in the future, thus needing a bigger population to sustain it?
Aren't we merely passing the buck to later generations?
How did the official narrative change from the "procreate sustainably" family planning campaign to this "procreate or go bust" mentality, both in the name of survival?
Perhaps that is where the answer lies.
It was for the sake of survival that the population was allowed to balloon even while the family planning exercise was taking place in the 1970s, ostensibly to address the declining total fertility rate.
In reality, the population increase, aided by immigration, was more likely to meet manpower shortages and was needed to capitalise on the prevailing economic opportunities in the 1970s and 80s.
That was the only way we knew how to survive.
We bit the bullet, took the chance and came out rich.
In the meantime, earlier concerns about sustainability took a back seat.
The question now is whether the formula will still work now, given that the population has tripled while the island can hardly be doubled.
Arguably, we have the technology and know-how to pack in six million people. But what would that do to our humanity?
We miss the big picture when we fail to notice that we have become a population that is refusing to reproduce - contrary to human instinct.
We must be coaxed, rewarded and penalised to procreate, which, in itself, is a signal that we are not comfortable with the current population density.
Instead of presuming that the population must increase to sustain the economy, can we also consider alternative economic models that suit a lower, more comfortable population density?
No comments:
Post a Comment