|
>Land is not currently and in the foreseeable future a constrained resource Sure, the Sahara has 3.552 million square miles of available real estate. San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Beijing, Paris, London, Canberra, Geneva, Soul, Oslo, Zurich, Hong Kong... not so much. You also have a very finite amount of land that is arable and unfortunately we keep losing more and more of it to development, desertification, etc. Again, sure there's a bunch of the U.S. that has extremely low population density but in most cases the land isn't very arable (if at all), there are no water sources for any sizable population, there are no exploitable resources to build industry around (mining, oil and gas, timber) to initially start towns around. Realistically usable land, desirable land, land that can support populations is very much a constrained resource. |
We only loose land to development were we don't push density. Desertification is not a major problem, since -- due to global warming -- we win more new land in previously uninhabitable areas (e.g. Siberia). From a sustainability POV, it is desirable to increase density of human dwelling: the more density, the less transport is needed, the more public transport makes sense, the more heating / cooling, electricity production etc can be centralised, which means more efficient usage of resources.