Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public health has a history of social engineering, sometimes successful.
I think there’s room for debate about what “social engineering” means. I’m talking specifically about hoping to solve a problem by convincing people to do something they don’t want to do, whether that’s exercise and lose weight or turn down the heat and put on a sweater to fight climate change. You can educate people and provide them with low cost, high benefit options. But you can’t change human nature or brow beat…
Ironically, the social engineering project most impactful to global warming exists to give people what they (think they) want, not to force them to do something they don't want to do. They're called suburbs. We made a whole range of living arrangements flat-out illegal, because (most) people express a preference for low-density living. A social engineering project of historical proportions. You're right; we should eliminate it.
People should be allowed to build whatever kind of housing they want to build on property they own and we should eliminate the social engineering scheme that restricts developers to single-family homes in most areas.