It’s hypocrisy to want to “keep the character of the neighborhood” and have more than the bare replacement number of children, since you’re creating a change in the demands on the neighborhood.
Most writeups of population growth rates and the economy focus on the economic benefits of more children, not the quality of life for the future generations. Future generations will not miss a Monarch butterfly or any species of tortoise or rhino just like we don’t miss the passenger pigeon or herds of a million bison, or being able to see a Milky Way we’ve only heard about. They might, however, be a bit put off by the water quality we’ve left behind, and let’s face it, we’re not all going to see an unspoiled wilderness because there’s relatively little left. Night sky is already abuzz with satellites.
Usually so, but sometimes not. What are the characteristics of Gion Kyoto, for example?
But humans occupy physical space. Almost everyone would prefer more privacy and space to less. Hence if the human population keeps growing, the price of having physical privacy and space will also keep growing. It’s just the bitter reality of it.
In addition, often times the architecture or established land use patterns of certain neighborhoods act as an upper limit on population density. It really grinds my gears when people advocate for essentially paving over these crucial neighborhood characteristics. This effectively destroys local culture in the name of “inclusivity”. Granted, there are definitely more neighborhoods without any unique character than not, and it’s hard to feel any sympathy for paving them over. But there are certainly quite a few neighborhoods globally that are quite special, and in these places inclusivity tends to be a tragedy of the commons scenario.