such a simple point -- how come no one will accept this? And the rich nations with heavy footprints "wants" the rest of the world to "achieve" the same lifestyle.

There are a few big problems - waste management, particularly plastic and other toxic forever chemicals; overuse of toxic chemicals in agri that ends up in the food chain; depletion of soil and water; not enough will to tackle problems sustainably.

So a few people can consume more and more -- exacerbated by marketing ads and infinite profit motives.

> then you have to make the argument that people shouldn't be able to get what they want

This is basically acknowledging scarcity exists. There will always be fewer places with large plots near people than people want, irrespective of the number of people.

> In the US, the vast majority of Americans want to own a single family home, not a condo or apartment

IMO there's 2 points to consider regarding this though:

One can't underestimate the fact it's illegal to build densely in a lot of the USA [1], so it isn't only preferences driving the market. Even if most people prefer single-family homes, and 50% want them to be "away from it all", there's reason to believe that the population that does want to live densely isn't being met with enough supply, and thus prices are still being artificially increased.

In terms of the high preference for low density, there's the unfortunate reality that the density is better in a dense context, but that's not something many people in the USA can experience. In New York, for example, ubiquitous density has meant one can live a convenient life without owning a car. An apartment in LA has all the disadvantages of an apartment, without the advantages of a dense city. That's the perception many people who do experience apartment living might have of it.

So overall, low density in the USA isn't purely preference-driven, and there's an argument to believe if more density _were_ built, preferences would change. It's worth keeping in mind.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...

If you live in a place like Tokyo it's expensive and depending on your salary you're not going to get much government assistance. In my case it's equivalent to $60 USD per month, for two kids. People on HN will often decry such things but it's a huge factor in the way people make decisions on starting a family or adding more kids.

No, this actually exemplifies the problem. Japan is arguably the most developed country in the world and despite their incredible wealth and societal prosperity - Japan doesn't have a very bright future.

The data appears to present progress itself as the enemy of population growth.

The more developed an economy, the higher the quality of life the fewer offspring people have. The higher the education level, the fewer kids - more money, less kids to spend it.

Part of it is a money issue - not as much as people make it out to be.

My best friend had a kid at 23 while working as a server in a restaurant - his college job (he dropped out) and he raised his son just fine, wasn't ideal but he's alive and here.

If your not having a kid bc of money and you really want to have one - there will never be enough money, there will always be another big project or promotion to work for, we all could use a bigger house.

The joy kids bring to life cannot be measured in financial terms - I wouldn't trade the memories of the moments I've spent with my nephews for all the money.

> Real estate is not an asset that appreciates in value in Japan, because it's eventually damaged or destroyed during an earthquake

This has nothing to do with it. Several other real estate markets are seismically active and dissimilar. Japan regularly razed and builds. That, along with limited immigration and a unique monetary policy, keeps housing prices down or depreciating.

Not really. If your building is up to code it should get by just fine, and it's not uncommon to see places that are getting bowled. People here prefer moving into a place that's brand new. The land you purchase will retain its value though, assuming you're in one of the main centers.

Everyone living in megacities is better than urban sprawl, which clears forests and woodlands. More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing. Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL. Whether acreage is cheap or not only refers to money, not the environmental cost. And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods. People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle. People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe.