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?
