[TerraMex]

Agreed on the offtopic thing. Last comment on the issue.

The UN doesnt impose , it recommends courses of action to the current problems. It's up to the members to decide if is valid, or not, and if so to implement it or not.

Again, if you read the text carefully you'd understand the "why", and usually that's all i state. I dont give a full personal opinion based on nothing. I dont like the situation where you can force someone to do something she/he doesnt like, but it's living in a glass dome if you think that doesnt happen. It happens all the time, in every country. Your freedom stops where your neighbour's starts, and the state imposes alot of measures , and some i bet you dont agree . And i understand that it can became (and it has in some countrys) a necessity to do so unpopular and invasive measures.

There are problems, looking the other way , and this is something i've been flamed about, and by you, is not really the answer either. There is overpopulation of the area, there is alot of aid going, but the issue remains, too many people for the existing aid and local resources. Then what? Even with a good program of managing and resource exploration (and has been implement , a great part sponsored by several countrys through the UN), the problem is still there, how do you propose to solve it? Let them (and i'll use Unregistered expression, adapted) screw like rabbits ? That's only going to get the problem worse. It's not about freedom, it's about saving lives, and giving a better chance for future generations to live, and live a better live.

There were millions of death due to those problems (famine) in the world in the past years, maintaining a free and uncontrolled populational growth in those areas originated those deaths.

Again, if you take a small time to research, most of the measures relate to families more than 4 children. Hardly a disproporcional measure. They are free to have kids, but not a army of them. Thats the main issue in alot of those countrys, large families with very or no mean of support. And that causes those fatalities . Nobody is killing anybody, the measure is to prevent large families, by putting a limit of children per family. And the countrys that have used the measure , saw it that way. And did it out of need, not badness .

Nobody is questioning the freedom os each individual, but , as stated, due to the problem, is drawing a "line". It's not a perfect world, and those problems should be solved by the best means possible. There are a great number of people in those countrys, governments and institutes developing the best way to deal with those problems, and they have a bit more experience that we do. The rest...well, we can give out opinions, but i dout it'll make a difference .

Take an example, in Africa (Zaire i think) , there are reserves form elephants. But occasionaly the food runs short, and to prevent most of them from die, they kill only a few . But this insures the future of the rest of the population. I dont like, but i understand why it's done. In this case, growth control through limits on the number of children operates as the same principle, giving a better chance for future populations.

In the end, it's not about agreeing with it, it's understanding why it's done , and until a better way comes along, why it's implemented. I rest my case.