It's mighty progressive to think of gaming as being beyond mere play, but that's what it is. Play. And as such, obviously the thrust of the industry will go towards young consumers, that's just good business. And to someone like me, who doesn't really recognize games as high art by and large, gratuitous amounts of hyper-realistic violence, or depictions of necrophilia, aren't things worth defending on principle, and the vast majority of the time they don't serve a purpose. So if the gov't wants to stamp it out, fine. Games don't grow on trees, they aren't drugs. If a moratorium on hyperviolence in video games is enacted it's not as if a huge black market on violent video games will arise. Games are expensive to make and are meant for mass consumption. Thus gov't intervention is as effective, if not more, as market forces in regulating the content of video games.
So if it's not some warning, what is it then? You're actually suggesting education in the literal sense? Are we going to have sensitivity classes that you can take when you're 18 to earn the right to play games? Are we going to have gaming licenses? If not, what good would these classes do?