The United States has had a below-replacement total fertility rate for a decade+:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA

Japan's total fertility rate has been consistently below-replacement since 1975:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN

Nonetheless, it took until 2010 for Japan's total population to peak and begin to decline. It's estimated to take until 2042 for Japan's population to fall lower than it was in 1975:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/

That's a 67 year lag between a country reducing birth rates below replacement and the country actually having more space available per capita.

So I downvoted you on two counts:

1) You seemed to be unaware that the US is already reproducing less, to the extent that its population will eventually decline without immigration.

2) "Reproduce less" takes a very long time to reduce total population. It takes many decades even if there is no immigration. Its influence is far too slow to help today's young adults afford their own living spaces.

> the US is already reproducing less, I am aware. Every civilization thus far has done this as technology advances. But it's a lot more happenstance than intentional. We're not actively trying to have less children for the sake of making anything better.

> "Reproduce less" takes a very long time Pretty much every real solution to any problem I have ever seen takes generations. If the point of more housing is to mitigate suffering while these changes take root, that sounds realistic and responsible. As it is, it sounds like nobody has any thoughts at all about when we should realistically cap ourselves and I don't think that's responsible.

There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed. If something that you want to happen is already happening, and you understand that it's going to take a long time regardless of how much active planning is involved, you don't need to do anything but wait.

> There's only a dereliction of responsibility if a trend is going in the wrong direction and nobody thinks about how it can be reversed

It appears your argument is that reproducing less is good, but we're already doing it (though not on purpose), so therefore me saying we should do it on purpose is wrong?

> What we really need is less people.

Okay, here's the thesis. Sounds like neo-Malthusianism.

> Seriously though, no matter how efficient we get with our space, eventually we'll hit a wall and the solution is going to be exactly the same as it always was and is: reproduce less quickly.

Yep, that's the Malthusian endgame. Unpacking this claim, it seems to be claiming that the Earth is a closed-system that we can't escape. Now I'm looking for evidence or supporting arguments that prove that.

> The only difference is how much nature will be left when we get to that point.

What exactly does the phrase "how much nature will be left" mean to you? This is too hand-wavy, especially for such a heavy-handed conclusion.

> I've started to look at houses with yards as miniature nature preserves.

Is a golf course a nature preserve? No. Of course not. It's an extremely controlled environment. Any wildlife foolish enough to try to inhabit it that doesn't fit in a coffee cup will almost certainly be chased off, trapped or killed.

Backyards do provide a nature preserve for a city. They take heat away and allows birds/raccoons/squirrels/butterflies a place to eat/rest. If they all were converted to apartments the city would be worse off. A balance of both makes sense.

Actually your usual backyard lawns are not much better than concrete slabs as far as biodiversity goes. [0]

https://earther.gizmodo.com/lawns-are-an-ecological-disaster...

The current population increases by about 140 people per minute. How do you intend to launch people off the earth at that kind of rate?

Because we live in three-dimensional space, there's no reason for us to run out of room unless we stop building (especially upwards).

The constraint isn't necessarily that people have to leave the planet so much as we need to ensure access to minerals and high industrial capacity.

When we exhaust "nearby" minerals and space transit has advanced enough, colonization will look more attractive.

Will we hit a bottleneck along the way? I don't know. But it would be an awful shame if it were political.

Or mutated by chemicals used to service the machines, treat the grass or clean the premises.

We could house trillions of people on the earth in skyscrapers if we needed to. We could even feed them with nuclear powered greenhouses. There are lots of reasons we don't want to do that. Room isn't one of them.

This reminds me of the now-complete podcast series "Our Fair City" and the HartLife Insurance tower.

Go to the Midwest. Go look at remote parts of any continent, Russia, China. There is absolutely enough space.

You should get out of the city more often.

Physical area we could potentially pack people into isn't really the problem. There are a lot of other considerations like biocapacity and employment options which are also important concerns. We could put a lot of people in remote parts of the world but where will they work? Shop? Those places often lack the kinds of critical infrastructure that would attract and sustain a thriving population.

I think overpopulation isn't our most pressing issue right now, but generally there are a lot of advantages to having fewer people.

They lack infrastructure because there isn't the demand for infrastructure. We build where there is demand, and the building creates further demand. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

This a bad argument for several reasons. 1) Most predictions already have the population leveling off around 9-11 billion people. 2) the economy is designed for an ever expanding population. There are be very serious negative economic repercussions to stalled or negative population growth. 3) There is no moral way to enforce this, so whats the point of even bringing it up?

Economic growth is scored through productivity gains, not more people.

In fact less people may help in some cases.

1. So let's call it 11 billion, build for that, and no more.

2. If the economy need's growth but is going to level out at 11 billion, we should think about that now.

3. Enforcement is heavy handed, but at least admitting it would be a step in the right direction.

Housing isn't a big portion of the land used to support most individuals. Food is the big one.

We need less people in places that cannot support having as many people as they already have. Building sprawling exurbs in the southwestern deserts comes to mind. Or some other cases that cannot be acknowledged in polite company.

Most developed nations are below replacement rate, and you don't have to look far in places like the northeast or midwest of the US to see places that are going to seed and reverting back into wilderness.

Well, unless you wanna get all Stalin-y, the current people are here to stay, and we have more than enough space to house them. I don’t wanna hear any nonsense about not having enough room. Saying “we have too many people” isn’t a solution, it’s just a falsehood.

Hey, this Soylent Green stuff isn't half bad.