There are many pluses and minuses to underground homes. The big drawbacks are a lack of natural light, and a need to design it with correct ventilation and protection from flooding. The advantages are massively improved insulation, and a smaller above ground footprint.
For an increasing population, this could be a solution to provide greatly increased housing in a limited space, but the big roadblock is that most people still just don't want to live below ground.
I think saying it's normal is a cop out; a straw man. Saying something is 'normal' doesn't really bear much weight; afterall, people say gay sex isn't 'normal', but we all (at least the one's who think about it) reasonably agree it is.
A reason other than 'it's not normal' has to be given (and, subsequently, being able to defend any refutations of said reason).
And I can't think of any other reason why it wouldn't be a selfish or ignorant act. It's selfish because they go, 'no! I WANT my villa by the sea!' or 'I WANT my tiny window!' in the face of the really compelling argument of, hey, this can save the planet and make life better for everyone overall, and let's just consider this for a second and see if it's viable (which means lives will be affected very little, and we will continue existence quite happily, and not uncomfortably). And, again, ignorant because they (the people that disagree) refuse to acknowledge, wholly, the arguments for it.
It's definitely not something humanity could do in one day, and it is certainly radical, but still, society has changed an awful lot in the last century. I don't see it as impossible.
Share 
