Land / population ratio in the US

So, I got curious and did the math, if we all bought equal land every man woman and child could buy 8 acres. So a family of three could buy a 24 acre farm, and so on.

Just for those as silly and curious as I am, not a suggestion, not saying anything political, just silly mind wondering!

With my luck, I'd be left choosing between the middle of Death Valley and a salt flat in Nevada.

Hehe!

Fortunately, a permaculture world would enable us to produce enough food on much smaller amounts of land to support the people - for instance, a family of 3 would not need 24 acres to support it in a permaculture world. More like one acre. Since the current (stupidly huge) human population is being supported by inefficient and damaging agriculture on the current amount of agricultural land, in a permaculture world the same (huge) population could be supported on much less land.

I would like to think a permaculture world would put more emphasis on keeping the human population to an appropriate size. That is, well within the carrying capacity of the land needed by humans, leaving plenty of land for wild nature, for the functioning biosphere upon which humans depend.

I was thinking of that also Tyler, I think with 8 acres you could truly do what needs done, rather than just feed, grow animal crops ( chickens bunnies Goats sheep) grow flax for R Ranson to make us clothes, lumber, small business work area.....pond for year round water

I think eight would serve quite well.

I got 7.4 acres. With about a tenth the population and a larger area, Canadians could get 70 acres. Lots of rock, ice, bog and permafrost to choose from. Even so, we have an amazing amount of good land per person.

The Irish in me just sees rocks and bogs.......sounds nice!

It wasn't always rocks and bog in Ireland. 6000 years of sheep, goats and people, will do that. A century ago, they had less than 1% forest cover. Without the aforementioned species, most of the island would be forested.

Actually the British navy, and Vikings are responsible for most of the deforestation, the former being a mostly. Buckingham is lined with Irish oak.

The Bronze Age wasn't kind either......

1541 Henry VIII declared ‘King of Ireland’ by act of the Irish parliament. He proceeds to shut down monasteries.

1543 Henry VIII’s Forest Act, a new Charter of the Forest enacted. This act is prompted by two factors: The first is the national requirement for shipping, brought on by the increase of colonization led by Drake, Raleigh and Frobisher. The second was the disclosure of corruption in the English forest administration, the result of which is a shortage in native timber. This change in policy is to have a drastic and enduring effect on the Irish woodlands.

1549 English Book of Common Prayer ordered to be used in Ireland.

1553 Papal authority restored briefly under Queen Mary.

1560Elizabeth comes to the throne and restores Anglicanism. England proceeds to build up her navy which goes on to defeat Spain in 1588. During her rule, Elizabeth I expressly orders the destruction of all woods in Ireland to deprive the Irish insurgents of shelter. The fact that England is to benefit from this isn’t a mere afterthought.

1569 Desmond rising begins, and is later crushed in 1573.

1591 TrinityCollege established as part of Elizabeth’s attempt to impose the Protestant reformation.

1594 O’Donnell and O’Neill begin their rising against Elizabethan authority.

1606 It is estimated that the Shillelagh Woods could furnish the Crown with timber for shipping and other uses for the next twenty years.