Weird question but at least there’s an N/A option at the bottom

There’s a brexit joke in there somewhere

China ended their one child policy because it had succeeded. Parents killing their daughters was a cultural issue particularly in rural farming communities who depended on their sons for labour. We can’t uncritically assume that any given implementation of a childbirth disincentivisation policy will lead to infanticide.

1. One-child policies have been sucessful in China and India, disincentivising large families doesn’t need to include banning people from having kids

2. No, the government should encourage busineses to disperse throughout the country and build affordable housing in multiple smaller cities

3. Again, no. Nature can only cope with a certain amount of foot traffic, the natural areas surrounding a city will survive better with fewer people

4. Tokyo is over 80 miles across. It takes over an hour to drive from one side to the other on the motorway It also isn’t particularly dense; it has a lower population density than London or Madrid. It’s just big.

Going back to the original post, compare the Shire to Mordor. If you had as many hobbits as you had orcs they wouldn’t all fit in the shire (without building highrises). Their low density village centric way of life only works because there aren’t very many of them.

Implement proper demography and population growth schemes so that you don’t end up with so many people in the first place, manage your population distribution on a national level so as not to overwhelm the natural resources of any one area, build walkable communities with a variety of density to suit peoples differing needs

I’m anti so many people that you need a dense urban area 80 miles across to fit them all *edit on looking it up it’s not all that dense, it’s just a big sprawling city

The urban area is 80 miles across

Tokyo

HO HO HO

It was sort of the plot of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer