I don't know who needs to hear this, but land is not scarce.
Discussion
Yea it is, but it's lumpy. But that's also what makes it valuable as property.
Uh, explain?
Land is not a finite resource. There is plenty of it on Earth to support a much larger population than we have now.
We just need to get rid of the fud from environMentalists.
Land is finite, unless you're implying we can leave this planet or build up.
And the existing farming systems have 0 chance to support the population we have now configured as we have it now for more than another hundred years.
We can and will leave this planet at some point or we will cease to exist as a species. Can can absolutely build vertically and should so far as modern farming solutions go. You're and agriculturist. You know how much food we (humans) waste on an annual basis. Food scarcity is not a problem. It's the manner in which we produce, distribute and consume that need be made more efficient. Technology doesn't stop. Everything trends to the marginal cost of production and technology makes that cost cheaper every day.
Your original point tho is still factually incorrect. Land on earth is finite, and land in space is currently not land in the colloquial sense, it's just rocks and has 0 value. You can talk hypothetically, but that's the facts now.
The food waste problem will take a decade minimum to implement a solution for decentralization of the food system, especially in America would require people to start eating and growing rabbits again. Families would need chickens. Suburban spots could do sheep. But cities basically shouldn't exist, and dismantling them is a socio cultural nightmare.
The fact is dirt is as finite as air.
So you're changing "land" to "dirt" from your original point. If that's the case the actually air is more finite than dirt as the crust is thicker than the atmosphere.
Also by changing your argument, you're not saying anything, dirt per se is useless, land implies a specific potential use of said dirt.
I'm not changing anything. You want to be technical and argumentative about something I'm not making a point about. So I'm not changing, I'm clarifying. Clarify what you mean by land if not dirt. If you mean something to live on well, we don't need to live on land, we can live anywhere.
You started with the argument that land is not scarce. If you divided the total land by the population, that's less than 5 acres per person. This ignores all land that can't even be used because of slopes and flooding.
That's pretty scarce if you ask me.
Teraforming exists... Land is not scarce.
So are we not taking into account the need for those people to be sustained by farming? Cuz unless you're gunna start flattening mountains you're not feeding all those people with that small amount of land.
We have plenty of land for people. Just drive through rural Texas. I'm not sure what you're arguing here? Of course there is a finite amount of dirt. Just like there is a finite amount of literally anything. The point is, land is not scarce to a point where it should have extra subjective value over its utility value just because of "scarcity" there is a shortage of land available to plebs. There is not a scarcity of land.
how many acres is needed to feed a person tho?
maybe half?
The technology part is what got us into this mess though. Gmos and subsidized oil is why we are in this pridicament. I am a software developer, and love technology, but it often centralizes power to cut costs and makes things standardized negatively impacting culture at the edges
land near lots of people is
land that you can farm on is a little bit scarce
but not land itself, if you need neither of those properties
People can move, dirt can be amended.
dirt can be amended at the edges maybe, you can't get as far trying to green a desert in the middle versus at the edge
but i agree in principle, in fact my criteria for how to choose the dirt i lay claim to is that nobody else wants it and nobody will tell me what i can do with it at odds with what i want to do with it
Land in currently desirable places is certainly not in abundance. You can go live in a desert, but... That sucks.
Turning land from undesirable to desirable is only a matter of energy. Lower time preference. That's why we prefer homesteads.
It's really hard to do without a ready water source.
More energy required. Diverting water is not a new invention. The aquaducts were a huge factor in Romes success.
Yes. That's not something one family can do while trying to survive.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Sure, but that's beyond the scope and capabilities of even small communities. It's possible, but not likely without much backing from a wider community. (I'm not wanting to involve any gubment since I don't believe in that.)
Government is an emergent phenomenon. Like money. The goal is to localize it to the greatest extent possible.
Just look at the Great Man Made River of Libya to see what can be achieved.
Desalination is again just a matter of energy. I'm sure Bitcoin miners can directly help with that.
It's just a matter of #energy to make use of it, and #Bitcoin fixes that.
Can't wait to buy 10000 acres lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79VUAFq2rbg
I saw this linked. You might find it as interesting as I did.
