Each “country” will be organized as a mega city and will be a geographical representation of a nation (“India”, for example, will now be a mega city, and the entire population of a country will be contained within the city limits). The United Kingdom has a land area of approximately 243,610 km² with an approximate population of 65 million people. New York City covers an area which is approximately 789 km² with an approximate population of 9 million people. Therefore, the entire population of the UK would require a city that is the size of seven NYCs. The UK's population would occupy slightly more than 5,680 km² as opposed to 243,610 km². Only about 2% of the current land mass of the UK in theory, is required to house the entire population of the UK with a density of NYC. Maximizing the density of the human footprint within a circumscribed area leaves the remaining natural areas with the opportunity to rejuvenate. The isolated landmass of Superdense has an area of roughly 7.5 million km². The current human population is about 7.5 billion. With a density similar to NYC, the entirety of the current human population will only need to occupy approximately 9 % of the landmass of Superdense. The logic above demonstrates that the entire human population can theoretically be accommodated in separate megacities on Superdense while providing ample free space for nature, even after the allocation of zones for agriculture, industry and green spaces.

Humanity has spread like a cancer all over the planet: urban, suburban and rural developments continue to consume natural resources and available land like the tentacles of a mythical monster with a hunger that can never be satiated. All these human settlements require modern necessities like electricity, clean water, access roads, waste management and related infrastructure. The infrastructure needed to connect and provide for the never-ending, expansive settlements are an economic drain. An enormous amount of electricity is exhausted travelling thousands of kilometres to reach towns and country homes. Countless roads and highways divide land, interfere with the migratory paths of animals and segment the landscape into a chess board. The more settlements spread out, the more these areas disrupt the natural order as a whole.

The territory that man occupies is unlike the territory of a natural apex predator: a pride of lions will have a territory of roughly 260 km² with free movement of prey and non-prey animals as well as the unhindered growth of flora with no dramatic changes to the landscape. Even on a small scale, the area occupied by a housing development or single family home has an environmental, ecological and geographic impact. Flora is culled to reflect the owner's personal tastes and/or new non-native species of plants are introduced, which can be invasive. Fences restrict the movement of animals and the environment created by man is sterile (i.e. a species as trivial as a fly is not tolerated within an average person's residence).

Man no longer lives in harmony with nature because human habitation displaces the previously existing ecosystem.

The primeval urge for humans to be the lord of their land is echoed in suburbia, where each person has their “castle”. Their small patch of green grass is not dissimilar to a balding man's pointless endeavour to preserve his last patch of hair, vaingloriously holding onto the idea of youth rather than reality. Human extravagance should be secondary to the environment; the primary purpose of containment of the human populous is for the conservation of the natural environment.

Almost any type of dwelling outside of a city for the advancement of human comfort is inefficient and ecologically ruinous. Therefore, permanent settlement outside of city limits is an irresponsible and a selfish act.

Human habitation on the planet is neither “good” nor “bad” in a moral sense. The ubiquitous creature comforts and associated conveniences are here to stay, but the management and containment of human dwelling on more compact, densely urbanized areas like cities are a more appropriate, ecological and economical solution. This is not to say that cities are entirely devoid of life. New York City provides a good balance of green spaces and immense urban development, coexisting somewhat harmoniously.

In a city, everything is centralized and efficient. A vast majority of the human populous already reside in cities, where they compromise comfort for expediency. Smaller towns and rural areas are often in relative proximity to a large urban centre and people that live beyond the bounds of the city, generally depend on cities for work, medical care, shopping, air transport etc. Almost all developments, in virtually every field, take place from within a city because it is a dense hub of interconnected individuals and ideas. It is also a world of concrete, steel, electricity; an entirely unnatural environment, but it reflects the conveniences associated with modern living. Cities are tightly packed, efficient containers of humanity.

It is often essential and perhaps imperative for people to venture out of the city and interact with nature, but conceivably for short amounts of time with a temporary stay or vacations, so that the impact on the environment is minimal.

There will be a segment of the population that would like and demand a permanent interaction with nature. This is acceptable as long as they do not utilize any advanced technologies and take with them any undeserved advantage gained from the cumulative progress of mankind with them. In simple terms, so that they don't have an unfair leverage and can hold their own on a level playing field with the natural world.