reply to post by FaithandArms
You are considering the amount of land, although not the agricultural characteristics of land. Too much land is inhabitable or suitable for only
certain kinds of crops. Farmers must always exist, although I prefer lots of small farms to corporations. Trade must exist. I would never be able to
eat corn,rice or certain fruits if trade did not exist. The area is simply too cold for it. Northern European summers have around 25-30 degrees
Celsius, while in winters the temperature might easily fall under -20 degrees. It is impossible to raise fruits, like bananas, oranges. The main crops
that can be grown are wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, most vegetables. Although in Asia many vegetables can not be grown due to the climate.
If we gave everybody 1 acre of land, it would create chaos, at is impossible to find 6 billion of acres of land with same agricultural
characteristics. There will be too much arguing a´la "Why did he get better land than I did?"Also most people would not have the time needed for
farming, if they have a job. Organic farming without pesticides takes enormous time, as all the weeds need to be handpicked out. It takes lots of
Also transportation must be taken into account. Roads must still exist, which means these will take lots of productive land from usage.
Tundras, deserts are simply inhabitable areas. It is extremely hard to grow anything in such areas. Majority of Russia east from Urals is not easy
place to live at. Unproductive land with cold climate is not good for living. That is why Siberia is quite inhabited compared to Europe. Same is with
many tropical areas (lots of Asia, Africa). They are only good for certain crops or things like cotton, coffee, cocoa etc, but not for vegetables.
I personally believe that forests and wildlife should be preserved. I doubt much waste is let into these areas by the "elite". Here is around 50% of
area forest and I love it. It truly affects the air quality. I sincerely hope at least 33% will always stay here and some idiots do not come and take
these down for personal gain.
Yes, normally individuals do not want to ruin their land, although often they still do due to lack of knowledge in farming.. Everybody who owns land
should at least go through a thorough training on land use, so they would not what is good and what is not good. I have seen several farmers turning
their land into swampish area simply by overwatering it or inproductive by overusing pesticides. It is not good for either land or the person,
although their lack of knowledge wasted a perfectly good land. I believe at least some amount of control should be over such actions, so that these
would not occur. Not overregulations e.g. too high grass, but simple things that would make land usage more effective, so that certain people or
companies would not let their land go waste by using it badly, whether intentionally or simply because of stupidity. To be honest, I would not mind if
any pesticide, which is not organic, was banned.
I read the Agenda 21 and to be honest, I did notice anything about restricted areas, only about having certain areas not deforested and not hunted, so
that forests with lots of wildlife would not be turned into inhabitable plains without animals, so that wilderness and wildlife would always exist..
There are certain areas in Europe like that, where even hunting is illegal.
For example, here hunters need to be certified and have only a certain amount animals they are allowed to kill in a year. The amount has been
well-calculated and it simply needs to exist as otherwise certain animals, which are more would already be dead. That way animals always exist in the
amount that is safe for the environment (so that they do not ruin the area), although they will also not become extinct. Although there are certain
restrictions for not taking down forests, even private ones.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)