I think the key to that graph is it takes the population density of those large cities and applies it to land area. The simple truth is there is just not enough land for all of us to live in suburbia.
Texas has 695,660,000 square meters according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas
If you accept that the average suburban land parcel is 100 square meters, then you have:
8,000,000,000 x 100 trying to fit into 695,660,000
It only works when you use city pop densities, not suburbia.
https://www.answers.com/geography/Can_the_population_of_the_world_fit_into_the_state_of_Texas
Not sprawling suburban McMansions, no, but, still livable, if you could figure out infrastructure. Which honestly sounds a lot like the BS 15 minute cities that are being pushed now.
We're talking high-rise apartments here.
No, we aren't. Though, they are certainly not efficient, space wise, and we're also not really treating families as anything more than just individuals, too.
My home is only about 240sqft. Could live on a thousand square foot lot of I had to, but I don't want to.
Sure, cities are fine for some people, and anyone that wants to can live in one, but I don't think that's good for humanity, long term.
The math doesn't work.
We are: 8,000,000,000 people
Earth has: 148,940,000,000 meters ^2
How many meters should each person get?
Kilometers squared, my dude. Not m^2
OK, sure. But, I hope you're realizing that it's still not a big issue, at least not in the sense that it's the "worst thing ever to happen since the world was going to end in 2008."
I never said population size is an issue, but you're kidding yourself if you think cities aren't the way to go.
The Earth has 148,940,000,000 square meters, we are 8,000,000,000, the average suburban parcel would put us above Earth's total land surface area.
