Bilal, you may have gotten the wrong impression so let me clarify.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there is no good reason to compare Pakistan with Bangladesh in terms of demographics, or
population, purely because we have similar nominal per capita GDP. Why? Because, Pakistan has more area and resources to support a larger population. We are not Saudi Arabia where over 90% of the land is desert.
To make this point more pronounce, can we compare Qatar (per capita GDP of $68,940 USD) with United States (per capita GDP of $57,467) because the two have similar nominal per capita GDP? I'm arguing that it doesn't make any sense just look at the area:
View attachment 415793
The area highlighted in orange is United States and the area highlighted in green, with the help of a circle because its essentially a dot on the map, is Qatar. Do you see the gist of my argument now?
Previously, I gave you the example of Myanmar and Ghana. Myanmar is right next to you and has a similar nominal per capita GDP, just like Ghana, however the difference in terms of area or sheer population is huge just as it is the case with Ghana. I hope this clarifies my response and you do not feel you are being targeted because that is not my intention.
Now lets address your point in terms of your argument on Pakistan's population independently. Some of the material you posted talks about sprawl which is the result of uncoordinated growth. In American and European cities, sprawl can result in enclaves or sub-urban areas that overstretch city services and lacks density. For example, how can a city provide daily bus service in a sustainable manner in an area that has only 200 residents? Given the meager tax collection, it can't be done. This often leads to cities becoming financial burdens or going bankrupt in some extreme cases. So why do I mention this? Because this is not the case in say Mumbai, Karachi or Dhaka. These South Asian cities are very densely populated. As long as we follow good urban planning practices, sprawl is less of an issue for us and we can provide essential services in a sustainable manner.
Some here may wonder what will happen to older dwellings in the city core which were built prior to the introduction of modern urban planning principles? Well, you can certainly manage them or modernise them but it is far cheaper to allow them to decay and fall into disrepair at which point you can revitalise them by bringing in businesses or housing developers who lap up the land because its prime real estate. That's what Donald Trump did in the 80s and 90s in New York. The people who live in those old areas can move on to better planned dwellings but one day these dwellings will face the same dilemma, i.e., the world has discovered better urban planning methods and old areas are getting tough love from city planners. The same patterns will repeat and the cycle continues. That's how New York, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. were transformed. I'm sure you can see hints of that in Dhaka as well. I certainly see hints of it in Karachi:
View attachment 415785
On a personal note, you are a good poster. I like your posts but take everything I say with a healthy dose of sarcasm. I mean well and I certainly don't want to give you the impression that we are somehow inhospitable people. I welcome you and all the Bangladeshi posters. Given the history of our two countries, we really should make more of an effort but my sarcasm tends to get the best of me. If you felt that I unfairly targeted you, I will gladly apologise but that was never my intention.