Reply #23: I don't see it happening either

[dcfirefighter]

but I maintain that the limits lie in human politics more than earthly abundance (or lack thereof).

I'd love to see real wildnerness in relative proximity to urban areas.

This is my selfish reason for supporting land value taxes - it causes the conservation of land: cities grow up, suburbs contract, and agriculture minimizes land inputs rather than labor inputs.

One of my favorite sites: www.carfree.com advocates carfree urban areas with a density of 50,000 / sq mi (average of 4 storeys, narrow streets, large courtyards). At this density, a population of 350,000,000 could live on less than 0.25% (less than 1/400th) of the land area of the contigous US, in cities and towns with populations ranging from 1200 to 12,000,000. Make it an even 1% and include greenbelt parklands.

Using the methods described earlier, food for these people could be grown on another 63,000 square miles, or 2% of the lower 48. Eat meat, as I do, and we'll make it 10% of the lower 48.

1% urban areas & greenbelts
2% cropland
8% grazing & forage land
89% wilderness, crops for export, whatever.

In theory, at least....