LogFAQs > #902634547

Admittedly I may have crapped a little too hard on the idea of a smaller population. First, it does depend on how much things are scaled back. Second, technological advancements and sociological changes will alter society's labor needs. Third, it depends where the reductions are happening (although, if the reductions are happening in the countrysides, the actual crowding issues don't go down and you *still* need improvements in efficiency to cater to the population centers).

However, that doesn't really change the fact that *most* of the perceived benefits associated with a smaller population are vastly overstated or misunderstood. And even the fear of living shoulder-to-shoulder is silly considering how many people cram themselves into cities today -- and, in fact, have done so for thousands of years. Living in close quarters is immensely practical, even when you have land to spare. Reducing the space between locations means that there's less travel time. And having a large population in a smaller area means that you can have a lot of businesses that wouldn't otherwise be viable in a lower-population area (and, of course, businesses like having larger labor markets because it means they have greater access to qualified candidates).

And keep in mind that the US has a lot of perfectly usable space that largely stays unoccupied. The population could easily spread out so everybody has a bit more space, but it doesn't happen because it's not convenient or efficient.

If somebody is concerned about farm-to-table, reducing the number of people in the countryside isn't going to make that more viable because food can spoil in transit and you need growing space. That'll *kind* of change with vertical growing practices -- which is a more efficient use of land -- but the same crowd that dislikes GMOs is likely to whine about those practices as well because it's "unnatural"
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.