• Izzy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But instead of a population of 100 with small houses you will get a population of 1000 because they built 10 apartment complexes. I think I’d prefer the small houses didn’t have lawns and left the nice trees and natural growth.

      • Izzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more like we wouldn’t birth 900 more people because the density of livable space doesn’t allow it.

          • Izzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. They would just be birthed elsewhere. It has yet to be seen if we can hit a global population cap. It seems like it has to be reached eventually.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is a population cap but it’s societal, people have fewer children as they get more education and higher quality of life.

              Which is the solution that conservatives don’t want to acknowledge, if you think overpopulation is a problem then you solve it by making people not live in such abject misery that they need 6 kids to make sure enough of them survive to take care of their parents when they grow old.

          • Izzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are in a hypothetical plot of tiny land that can be thought of as the entire world. If you have an argument to make based on this rather silly hypothetical world we are talking about then feel free to make it.