Thread: Should there be child restrictions

Originally Posted by Puffin

Before we started relying on hospitals and medicine to keep our population up and consistent, we were only having one or two children because the mortality rate was higher.

that's a little off - a higher mortality rate actually means that people have more children. the point is that the infant mortality rate in developed countries is lower, life expectancy is up, and it's more sensible to not have such large families. those in developing nations have such a high rate of population growth partly because they need children to support them, especially as they age. [edit: this is also caused, worldwide, by women having children earlier in life - which is strongly related to education]

Originally Posted by Hidden

I have to agree with Repo here... I'm all for not overpopulating the world, but I don't think the government should have the power to force people not to have babies.

again,

Originally Posted by cygnus

bringing people out of poverty and educating them are the best ways to deal with overpopulation, especially in developing, third-world countries (the ones with insane growth rates).

i don't know why people say something like, "oh no the government is gonna go stipulatin' on us!"
we're not in china.

the government has more of a responsibility to address these things more competently, and actual control like you mention is very unlikely to happen in the western world.