Assuming you don’t believe in forced sterilization there is actually no public policy way to reduce density.
It’s just a mathematical fact. More people means on average the population density increases.
Since all solutions involve increasing density somewhere the argument actually reduces to the question of where.
Assuming you think Oregon, specifically, should be less dense or remain the same, then you are necessarily an advocate for increased density somewhere else.
> Assuming you don’t believe in forced sterilization there is actually no public policy way to reduce density.
There is. Restrict the dense office space, by cap-and-trading it. Like we did with sulfur emissions.
Also, "forced sterilization"? WTF are you talking about?!? The US population is likely peaking within the next decade and the peak population will likely be 5-7% more than the current level.
The area of the United States is 9.8 million square kilometers. Its population is 347 million. Average population density is 347/9.8 = 35 people per square kilometer.
It’s just a mathematical fact. More people means on average the population density increases.
Since all solutions involve increasing density somewhere the argument actually reduces to the question of where.
Assuming you think Oregon, specifically, should be less dense or remain the same, then you are necessarily an advocate for increased density somewhere else.
So maybe tell us where?