> saving 57 children in a single year is a lot
Yes, but I think this figure was proposed in order to be contrasted with the reduction of 8,000 births that same year.
Yes, but I think this figure was proposed in order to be contrasted with the reduction of 8,000 births that same year.
We can argue if the lives saved by seats are enough to counterbalance the inconveniences they pose, but among this inconveniences I would not put the reduction in the number of third children - I would actually put that as a plus, as a super-soft demographic control policy.
It is not a plus, because in the US there is no need to control births. To the contrary, there are not enough births.
I think the US is about even, or slightly positive. But then the US has a lot less people than Europe on a per land area measure.