The earth has 149mil sq km of land area so those suburbs would take up about 1.7% of the land. If you subtract out antarctica (14 mil sq km), siberia (13 mil sq km) and 3/4 of canada (7 mil sq km), the sahara desert (9mil sq km)... you're still left with about 106 mil sq km so we're using about 1.8% of the land.
Density isn't evenly distributed you say? Well, let's look at only china then... Some 1.4 bil people in 9.6mil sq km. Everyone living on in 500 sq m lots means 350,000 sq km, or about 5% of the land. Lots of western china is too inhospitable you say? Fine, subtract out Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xining (forget the fact that 60mil+ people live there). That's half of china's land area! You're still left with around 4.860 mil sq km. So everyone's suburban lots would fit in about 7% of the land.
My point here is that the earth is not really as crowded as many people seem to believe. It only seems crowded if you spend the majority of your life in or near dense urban areas. Which most people do these days. So most see it that way. There are still vast tracts of nearly uninhabited land and even vaster expanses of sparsely inhabited land. Sure, these are typically not the really nice bits of the earth (from a human perspective), but we do have central heating and A/C now, right? :-)
We should be aiming to design houses so that minimal HVAC is necessary to maintain comfortable conditions, not building ramshackle houses in the desert and patching the inefficiencies with massively energy-consuming devices.
The broader point I'm trying to make is that we should be aiming for effective improvements in living standards - and there are two components in effectiveness, correct orientation and efficiency. American suburbs are pretty backwards in terms of cost/benefit: they're expensive to maintain infrastructure-wise, they isolate people from each other, and you have to drive for an hour to get to anything leading to even more expensive car-centric infrastructure. We should be aiming to fulfil human needs on a planetary scale, which means efficient use of resources.
Car traffic and road maintenance are limiting factors here, but I don't see any reason why the private air conditioning and even heating a pool (the space for a private pool, on the other hand is a traffic generator) would be limited by energy availability.
Way too many people live in places where the environment temperatures are outside of the survivable range, or in places that get so hot, it's hard to do anything (often even at night). You just can't fight those by designing you building differently. You can improve the situation a little bit, but not enough.
I'd rather push for population control. I don't want to live in a world where humans have to live like insects, crammed into giant hive cities.
> However, if we're a little more clever with how we allocate and share our resources, we can scale up standards of living in a sustainable way - urban transit and a fleet of automated electric taxis, community pools, zero energy building techniques and mixed developments, and so on. This just requires that we head back in the direction of sharing things (social democracy) and away from economic individualism (neoliberalism).
I'd rather use cleverness to sustain our quality of life with smaller populations. If we had your sci fi utopia, we could have a population of 1 million total humans, each living like a king. I don't understand why you want to use sci fi magic just to have everyone live like an ant in a box
Not only is population control completely unnecessary, but it requires either mass murder or forced sterilisation. I would prefer that we not do either of those things.
As standards of living increase, population growth also naturally shrinks to even or below-even maintenance rates; so if you're worried about a future with 100 billion humans crammed into Hong Kong style bed cages, your best bet is to try to improve living standards around the world.
By whose definition? Living in a city is not a great quality of life for me. I've done it and hated it compared to living in a suburb.
> Not only is population control completely unnecessary, but it requires either mass murder or forced sterilisation. I would prefer that we not do either of those things.
Educated people have way fewer children than poor and uneducated people. Not to mention placing a cap on immigration, etc. Your argument is reductivist and leaves out a lot of valid ways to reduce populations.
