You're making a Malthusian argument. Yes, if you were to kill the city dwellers, then net carbon release would be lower. Given the same amount of humans, howeve

You're making a Malthusian argument. Yes, if you were to kill the city dwellers, then net carbon release would be lower. Given the same amount of humans, however, distributed with rural or suburban densities, you face a dramatic increase in carbon release. Unless humans were to go back to pre-industrial populations, carbon release would be much higher. I think that rural life is more enjoyable than urban life, but feelings don't change the facts. So I'm not sure what you're advocating. It is almost as if you are changing the argument in order to feel as if you won.