It sounds so funny when people talk about individuals like they are puppeteers with power beyond their direct sphere of influence. Not even Jesus controlled others beyond their free will to choose their own actions and thus effect the consequences of those actions. All any good leaders really do is try to make people see the consequences of actions, good and bad.

The only thing you 'give' people is the opportunity to make good choices and influence others to do so as well. If we fail, and enough people still make bad choices, the (bad) consequences will still affect us. If you give up and say it's futile to try because human nature is inherently flawed as well, the bad consequences will still affect us. If they don't affect us in our lifetime, they will affect future generations. Some people don't care what happens to people outside of their sphere of influence or who will live after they die. This is selfish.

Plenty of people give up and accept a life of indifference toward bad actions and their consequences. They accept their lot, take the good while it comes to them and usually blame others when their good luck runs out. If people choose indifference, what worse can you wish on them than to reap what they sow?

Everything is constantly changing. Everything we do has consequences. That is how the future emerges from the present, just as the present emerged from the past in this way. All it really takes for present actions to change to create a better future is for people to realize 1) what the consequences of actions are 2) let go of all the futility ideologies that insulate them against the belief that they are just as much of the problem as anyone else. If they believe that there is collective inertia to human action that undermines the ability of individual determination to make any difference, they will fail to try and it is because they fail in this way individually that they fail collectively (or succeed, depending on whether you see the failure of the individual as the triumph of the collective or as a collective failure of failing individuals).

It doesn't matter how small any individual is relative to 'the world.' All that matters is the truth. If the truth can be established that sprawl is unsustainable, then people will either do something about it or fail to do anything and become supporters of degeneracy. Once people become supporters of degeneracy, they destroy each other out of hate and indifference. This is why so many people are smart enough to actively deny something like climate change theory; i.e. because they know that if it IS true, then they would be degenerate to do nothing about it.

See above regarding resistance to colluding with degeneracy. Ignorance is bliss so some people do their darndest to remain ignorant and silence anyone who threatens to interfere with ignorance.

This whole thread has defined sprawl. It has to do with high-traffic across long distances that increase disparity between transit/cycling and driving. It does not have to do with sparsely populated rural areas or suburbs that are self-contained enough that residents of those areas have the option of conveniently living car free if that is what they choose. It has to do with car-free living being a choice on par with automotive living, even if automotive living is not prohibited in the area.

Most people accept it as a given. Most people are able to find happiness in the things they don't have control over. They may not be immediately aware that the mundane suffering that comes with driving-dependency in a sprawling area are avoidable. For them to know that, they would have to live car-free for some time, long enough to get used to it as an inevitability. E.g. if an average person had no choice but to live in some Dutch city, car-free, for the rest of their lives, they would ultimately live a happier, healthier, life but there would be nothing preventing their mind from continuing to believe that they preferred the convenience of driving simply because the mind is lazy and ignores the consequences of unhealthy choices until they manifest as health problems, which are then perceived in isolation from the patient's broader lifestyle.

People feel good about making sacrifices to do what they believe is the best thing for themselves and their families. They choose a certain suburb because they believe their property will hold its value and/or appreciate. They do it because they believe they are safely isolated from crime and pollution of other areas. If all these things are only possible in their minds by driving long distances between the suburb and other areas, they will make the sacrifice and be happy about it. The sad part is that it is not a necessary sacrifice.

It doesn't matter how people feel. They all have the right to live in areas where the choice/freedom to switch transportation modes is available to them. If we were talking about the right to travel by helicopter and private plane everywhere, I would say it might not be feasible for everyone to have these choices available to them, but cycling and transit are within reach for everyone.

More importantly, if areas continue to grow beyond driving/transit/cycling parity, the choice continues to erode and the consequence is that sprawl brings motor-traffic to the point of untenability. That's unsustainable. Sprawl can't keep overflowing from one area to the next without moving toward some type of dead-end. It is not good when population growth progresses toward a dead-end. Who would disagree with that?