answer:Here are some of my beefs about the book so far. First of all, everyone is paranoid about disease—it wouldn’t make sense to cram all of the population into cities. There would be a higher chance of spreading disease if the population were dense. Better to keep people in lower populated areas. Second, aren’t the coastal areas harder to maintain than inland? The East coast has hurricanes and the west coast has fires and earthquakes? I really don’t know about this one, but I’d prefer my remaining population to stay inland, myself. Third, in the book, there are severe food shortages because poor infrastructure and almost no farming going on. There are also massive power outages. To me, it would seem more logical to have people in more rural populations and go to a more agrarian society. They could grow their own food and wouldn’t need much of an infrastructure. Instead of supplying electricity and water to every individual house, you could set up stations in areas where people could go watch news, bathe and get medical care. —- Anyway TLDR, I think enforcing a rural agricultural society would be more sustainable than forcing everyone to live in large cities along the coast.