Some governments say how many children a family can have in their country. They may control the number of children someone has through taxes. It is sometimes necessary and right for a government to control the population in this way. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer.

It is certainly very understandable that some governments should start looking at ways of limiting their populations to a sustainable figure. In the past, populations were partly regulated by frequent war and widespread disease, but in recent years the effects of those factors have been diminished. Countries can be faced with a population

that is

growing much faster than the nation’s food resources or employment opportunities and whose members can be condemned to poverty by the need to feed extra mouths. They identify population control as a means of raising living standards. But how should it be achieved? Clearly,

this

whole area is a very delicate personal and cultural issue. Many people feel that

this

is not a matter of the state. They feel

this

is one area of life where they have the right to make decisions for themselves. For that reason, it would seem that the best. the approach would be to work by persuasion rather than compulsion

This

could be done by a process of education that points out the way a smaller family can mean an improved quality of life for the family members, as well as less strain on the country’s perhaps very limited, resources.

This

is the preferred way. Of course, if

this

does not succeed within a reasonable time scale, it may be necessary to consider other measures.

such

as tax incentives or child-benefit payments for small families only. These are midway between persuasion and compulsion So. yes. it is sometimes necessary, but governments should try very hard to persuade

first

. They should

also

remember that

this

is a very delicate area indeed and that social engineering can create as many problems as it solves?