Really? We want less people in any given square mile? People with a certain level of wealth already have (and will likely for a long time maintain) access to that.
If your argument is that semi-rural or suburban living should be made as affordable or desirable as urban living, I think you should provide some evidence for that. By default, it's easier to be less isolated and have access to more infrastructure (healthcare, social, financial, economic, cultural, arts) and to access them at a lower marginal cost due to economies of scale. You also can bring in a level of standardization politically in that one polis can (for better or worse) create political infrastructure that effectively serves more consituents for its base operational costs than a a more rural one.
If your argument is about quality of life, I'd argue that LA is not a great example of a city to use as an example of the ills of population density. It has awful transportation infrastructure and is structured like a giant suburb, in effect. There are cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin in Europe, and in America cities like Chicago or NYC where you can survive biking or taking public transport everywhere. You get access to everything you need to live your entire life without needing a car.
The only thing that you've said that runs contrary to what I value is the idea of people hating living a densely packed apartment complex in the middle of a noisy city. First of all, you can live in a quiet complex in a quiet portion of an otherwise noisy city (I do so in NYC), and second of all, the homestead lifestyle of having "40 acres and a mule" only makes sense in the context of a society wanting sparsely settled land to be settled.
Its end goal does not necessarily result in a happy, free society. I believe that's why you were shot down -- it's not that you failed to articulate your idea properly. It's that your idea was flawed in the first place.
If your argument is that semi-rural or suburban living should be made as affordable or desirable as urban living, I think you should provide some evidence for that. By default, it's easier to be less isolated and have access to more infrastructure (healthcare, social, financial, economic, cultural, arts) and to access them at a lower marginal cost due to economies of scale. You also can bring in a level of standardization politically in that one polis can (for better or worse) create political infrastructure that effectively serves more consituents for its base operational costs than a a more rural one.
If your argument is about quality of life, I'd argue that LA is not a great example of a city to use as an example of the ills of population density. It has awful transportation infrastructure and is structured like a giant suburb, in effect. There are cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin in Europe, and in America cities like Chicago or NYC where you can survive biking or taking public transport everywhere. You get access to everything you need to live your entire life without needing a car.
The only thing that you've said that runs contrary to what I value is the idea of people hating living a densely packed apartment complex in the middle of a noisy city. First of all, you can live in a quiet complex in a quiet portion of an otherwise noisy city (I do so in NYC), and second of all, the homestead lifestyle of having "40 acres and a mule" only makes sense in the context of a society wanting sparsely settled land to be settled.
Its end goal does not necessarily result in a happy, free society. I believe that's why you were shot down -- it's not that you failed to articulate your idea properly. It's that your idea was flawed in the first place.