Like, I guess I don't understand how nobody is seeing the dystopian future where you have to live in a goddamn car because you can't afford proper shelter. I know it's a thing elsewhere in the world, but people are try to get out of that, not into it.
If we were most concerned about maximizing efficiency, we'd all be living in dense urban environments, using shared public transportation, etc. Most people would sleep in something similar to a Capsule Hotel.
1. Could view it as a cultural thing. For example, some cultures might embrace minimal personal space. And, the media keeps talking about the "tiny house movement."
2. Everything is relative. I personally opted to buy a smaller house than I could afford, and I generally try to live minimally.
3. In general, it's better for the collective good (less waste) to move in that direction. That said, technological advance might some day allow every human to live in a McMansion.
Also remember that there isn’t a big difference between tiny houses and trailers. Imagine turning SF into a trailer park.
But there is a huge difference between a minimally viable shelter (electricity, plumbing, standing room, privacy) and a car or a capsule. Where exactly do you have sex? Vomit when sick? Keep a pet gold fish? Cook? Poop? All of that is possible in 400 sqft apartment and not possible in a car. So it’s not quite relative.
Good luck with your city without rural folks to grow your food...
- living outside of a city is actually a luxury. Cheap land, but a long distance to culture and services. Most people cannot afford a car, for example.
- rural living is more detrimental to the environment