Should population be controlled?

I agree with Liam, I think that in MEDC's and some LEDC's where population growth is not a major problem, there would be no sense in agreeing to any sort of population control (eg. China's one child policy).

However, in other places where population size is a growing concern, some form of slowing down the process would be a good idea (eg. family planning, birth control, etc.).

Although I can see the reasons for China's one child policy, I think it would be really unfair on the women who wish for more children. It is hard to understand it in a sense, because we are so lucky here in the UK, but their population policy must just be an everyday thing to live with and like it or not they have to accept it, because unless the problem fades it will be there.

Sorry Roxanne, I disagree with what you said concerning limiting the number of births in Britain. If everyone had five children or however many, then the infrastructure of Great Britain would be unable to cope. If you want to have lots of children in Britain, then you must consider what knock on effects this would have for Britain's wider population. We would not be taking a person's human rights away, we would just be advising them on what is best for them and their children. Anyone got any other opinions?

[i]I believe that population should not be controlled in Britain.[i][b]This is because people should have a right to how many children they can have, no matter what. I wouldn't like it if someone said to me

Quote :

NO your not allowed to have that baby oyou pregnant woman you must abort it!

. Maybe familys who don't have any money and are on the dole or something should be given a limit because we shouldn't pay for all 19 of there children.

I agree with Abby that after x amount of children you should be forced to pay the upkeep. However i wouldnt like to be the one to tell a nother who has had twins that she can get things frre for 1 child and not the other.

It could be hard to implament any changes in LEDC's as they are often comunities that are so remote that no contraceptin could reachthem.

good point however i believe that no one has the right to take away your basic human rights...... thses include your choice on children

Mattyo wrote:

It could be hard to implament any changes in LEDC's as they are often comunities that are so remote that no contraceptin could reachthem.

Although, communities 'so remote' won't take much participation in the whole scheme. These Hamlets or small villages will have room to expand, being so isolated in the middle of nowhere and houses there tend to be large anyways. Unlike those living in bust cities and main, densely populated areas.

i dont think population should be controlled in the UK because we don't have a drastic increase in population like other countries (for example China), but i think if we did then maybe we should have a controlled birth rate , it worked well for china in the end didnt it?

Kathryn_B wrote:

i dont think population should be controlled in the UK because we don't have a drastic increase in population like other countries (for example China), but i think if we did then maybe we should have a controlled birth rate , it worked well for china in the end didnt it?

I suppose so yeah, although it is still increasing, but obviously not as fast.

As previously said, don't you think we oughta' start earlier before it starts getting out of hand and hard to 'fix'?

there is no point trying to fix a something that is not a problem. However i see what you mean. The population increase in the UK is small and isnt an issue that needs to be adressed yet, and even when it is polatitions will be to scared to implament it. It only worked in China because the country is comunist.

if we start trying to stop population growth now then we will be affected later in our lives

i think we should wait untill it really IS a MAJOR problem before doing anything about it

i know it sounds selfish but i would rather live a more free life than a life that could restrict me


anyone else feel the same?

Mattyo wrote:

... it only worked in China because the country is comunist.

How do you mean?

If we don't do anything about it now, it will cause us to expand into our much loved countryside and reserved areas making it more and more economical. Although this will be good for trade and power... it's another story altogether.

yea a agree however you may need to plan for the future and be responsibl. Therefore when there is a problem there are plans in place

If you read all of the previous posts there has been quite a lot said about helping the future generations, saving the countryside and sharing out food sources.

These are all things that can help us in the future and future generations.

Mattyo wrote:

yea a agree however you may need to plan for the future and be responsibl. Therefore when there is a problem there are plans in place

Yes but then it would affect us!

when Britain is too crowded or the public services are too strethced. However it will be to the governments to decide.

Mattyo wrote:

when Britain is too crowded or the public services are too strethced. However it will be to the governments to decide.

i agree

well it all depens really because of population overload but places like china maybe should be controlled but places like ermmmm well i cant fink of any atm

Iceland...no body lives there...and also there is no speed limits and its light for 23 hours of the day!...anyhoo so yeah places such as china should controll their births even though it co-insides with the whole christian belief thingmabob...[center]

i think it should be controlled in places like china, because it way too crowded there; but not in britain - not yet anyway!!

If the growing of population in Britain is allowed to continue there will be serve damage to the countryside and destroy animal habitats. These are all things that couldn't be brought back once we had made the change to urban areas.

Maybeeee we just need to advertise to make people think about family planning and showing them the possible overcrowed future - it had seemed to work for smoking and alcohol !!! so we should trial it over 3 years and see if it has made any difference to the birthrate
btw - hu is horace?

I agree with Si an Kirsty here.
Once our countryside has been urbanized - that's it, it's gone, or will at least take hundreds of years to return to its previous state. Our rural areas are, I think, the thing that Britain should be most proud of.
Also, i agree that an advertising campaign would be a really good idea. It could alert people to the dangers and inconveniences of overcrowdeding.

Oh and Horace is Mr Gamesby's rock. He has a wife called Henrietta to... You'll make friends with them when you learn about erosion in rivers

i agree 2 that we'll never get our countryside back once its gone. if we do build houses, why doesn't the government put more money into echo-friendly houses? britain is too beautiful to destroy!!

idea: to cut down on britain's population, could we not let so many immigrants in? there's loads of people coming here for jobs, which i can understand, and although britain is multicultural, perhaps we should be more careful about the NUMBER we're allowing in. its just a thought!

hayley- you cant stop all imigrants as anyone in the EU theroretically has the right into any country without visas or anything

I am very passionate about the countryside we have here in Britain and I agree that we should be proud of it. However, I think that it is only something like 5% of the country is protected by National Parks, although I do believe that a new one is going to be created in the South Downs. Green Filed sites are a good idea too, ( I think that's the right term), but if the government are wanting to meet their target of 3 million new homes in Britain by 2020 they will have to built on these sites. So, what is the point in having these laws and regulations if they are going to be broken?