Some governments say how many children a family can hare 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.

　　Model 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 she 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 to 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 for 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. 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 docs 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?