[TeMPOraL]

Denying people their meat or SUVs is an equivalent problem to limiting the number of children they have. People won't give their "freedoms" voluntarily - you have to force them either by law or by economy (and letting the free market take care of it will likely be too little too late).

The whole argument sounds to me like "we don't have to force people to change their lifestyle to adjust for Earth's capacity - we can always force people to change their lifestyle".

[ZenoArrow]

Are you suggesting most people have the same level of attachment to SUVs as they have to their fellow human beings?

[TeMPOraL]

I'm suggesting people have a smiliar level of attachment to being allowed to buy a SUV as they have to being allowed to have a child in the future.

Which is pretty visible in the West; every time the government tries to limit access to something, you get a stream of arguments that look exactly the same as those against one child policy that are posted here.

[ZenoArrow]

Would people miss what they never had though? What if public transport was so good that people just didn't need to buy cars anymore? As in, so good that there wasn't any practical reason to own a car. Would a generation of people raised with a strong public transportation system still find enough of a reason to use a car (aside from as a form of recreation)?

[TeMPOraL]

I think they wouldn't. That's why I find most of those objections silly - they're just something people got used to. It's like every time Facebook improves their UX, there's this huge uproar about the fact they dared to change things, but it dies out within a month as people get used to the new look and are still happy.