So you propose a population control scheme where people won’t be allowed to have children unless allowed by the government or some kind of max cap of children per parent?
The government should also relocate people or forbidd them to have children unless they move?
Isn’t it honestly best to have very dense areas so that the real natural resources (which I assume you mean trees and shit) are untouched.
I don’t see what walkable communities have anything to do with this. Dense urban areas are usually the most walkable areas.
Most cities if not all cities aren’t equally dense everywhere so we can check that.
One-child policies have been sucessful in China and India, disincentivising large families doesn’t need to include banning people from having kids
No, the government should encourage busineses to disperse throughout the country and build affordable housing in multiple smaller cities
Again, no. Nature can only cope with a certain amount of foot traffic, the natural areas surrounding a city will survive better with fewer people
Tokyo is over 80 miles across. It takes over an hour to drive from one side to the other on the motorway It also isn’t particularly dense; it has a lower population density than London or Madrid. It’s just big.
Going back to the original post, compare the Shire to Mordor. If you had as many hobbits as you had orcs they wouldn’t all fit in the shire (without building highrises). Their low density village centric way of life only works because there aren’t very many of them.
China ended their one child policy because it had succeeded. Parents killing their daughters was a cultural issue particularly in rural farming communities who depended on their sons for labour. We can’t uncritically assume that any given implementation of a childbirth disincentivisation policy will lead to infanticide.
So you propose a population control scheme where people won’t be allowed to have children unless allowed by the government or some kind of max cap of children per parent?
The government should also relocate people or forbidd them to have children unless they move?
Isn’t it honestly best to have very dense areas so that the real natural resources (which I assume you mean trees and shit) are untouched.
I don’t see what walkable communities have anything to do with this. Dense urban areas are usually the most walkable areas.
Most cities if not all cities aren’t equally dense everywhere so we can check that.
One-child policies have been sucessful in China and India, disincentivising large families doesn’t need to include banning people from having kids
No, the government should encourage busineses to disperse throughout the country and build affordable housing in multiple smaller cities
Again, no. Nature can only cope with a certain amount of foot traffic, the natural areas surrounding a city will survive better with fewer people
Tokyo is over 80 miles across. It takes over an hour to drive from one side to the other on the motorway It also isn’t particularly dense; it has a lower population density than London or Madrid. It’s just big.
Going back to the original post, compare the Shire to Mordor. If you had as many hobbits as you had orcs they wouldn’t all fit in the shire (without building highrises). Their low density village centric way of life only works because there aren’t very many of them.
china literally had to end their one child policy because it was causing shitloads of issues and killing the country.
Do you want japan to make parents kill their daughters? that’s what happens with one child policies.
China ended their one child policy because it had succeeded. Parents killing their daughters was a cultural issue particularly in rural farming communities who depended on their sons for labour. We can’t uncritically assume that any given implementation of a childbirth disincentivisation policy will lead to infanticide.