Re: Restriction of children
 

Exactly, Scorpy.

Over-population in poor, rural areas does not mean all of those live births are going to live to se adulthood.

Re: Restriction of children
 

The problem is that lots of parents cant afford to support it because THEY ARE ON BENIFITS, I don't believe that if you are on benefits you should have the right to have children, as they will be a burden on societies financial resources and not yours.
In any case I don't believe that any couple should be allowed more than 2 children.

Re: Restriction of children
 

Right I don't know how old you are Bobo but you call yourself wise so I
presume (& I exepct) you will get the following:
Since only up to really the present day it takes two members of the current
population to produce another (instigate the inception of a child) then if on average all parents have 2 children then - ignoring mortality & esp. infant mortality that could often also make a casualty of the mother - their children will replace their numbers. Population numbers should be constant.
You can see how this is so. If you remove 2 people you need 2 to take their place.
Now you probably have already seen the results if:
successful average birth rate - (premature mortality rate) is greater than 2 = population increase.
if:
successful average birth rate - (premature mortality rate) is lower than 2 = population decrease.
Now thanks to medicine & advances in healthcare, knowledge, accessibility etc. the infant mortality rate is negligible even in non '1st world' countries.
Infant mortality rate is probably what helped keep the population low in the years before industrialisation. It was probably also the reason why there was more of a celebration & emphasis on creating the next generation; it seemed all too possible that a 'bad year' could leave the population level looking meagre.
For the same reasons the general mortality rate is also very very low.
For years the net rate of births have been greater than 2 on average & so we have more people alive today than have ever lived or died before in the history of the planet. Counter intuitive isn't it?
Its all a simple case of seeing that if people have 3 children on average then there will always be (on average) 1 more per couple of people than there were before & so there have to be more people now than there ever were before. Simple arithmetical rule leads to quite a surprising realisation (or not).
So no there are more births than deaths - on average- hence population increase.

Re: Restriction of children
 

and yet actual statistics for first world countries prove you wrong. weird eh?