3 ms·

> ... they represent a path forward towards high quality of life and lower ecological impact. Could you expand on "high quality of life"? I'm not sure how that

• rosege 8y ago
  As someone living in a city that has over the last 20 years had a massive increase in population I believe the previous poster is referencing less competition for limited resources. In day to day life this could be less traffic jams or less competition to use shared resources such as parks or even just lower property prices.
  • ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
    Understood but lower population could also mean less people trading and that would impact quality of life quite badly. Steve Jobs living in a world of 10,000 would have been living in abject poverty no matter how good his entrepreneurial skills. A larger population can do more things, and with trading increase quality of life in important ways (medicine, technology, arts) that may be better off than ghost towns with cheap property. My point is your parent commenter is right to ask whether lower population really means higher quality of life, I don’t think it necessarily does.
    • rosege 8y ago
      I think it depends a on where you live. If you are living in a smaller city/town then you can benefit from the advantages that you mention without the externalities that I talk about.