farmland

The reality is that the real blight on nature is the single family homes which are built on forests and farmland.

We're already providing more than enough food in the US with existing farmland (although the problem is it isn't distributed properly to people who need said food).

People from out of state assume everything in CA is nuts expensive but you have to remember the state is also full of farmland, forests and deserts.

Native grass is the only thing that grows well and reliably on the majority of North American farmland without tillage or chemicals.

So, in a province with abundant farmland, Milk/Butter/Cheese were expensive enough that was worth a trip across the border to stock up.

It's also something where, the farmland in Japan is beautiful, while the farms on the West Coast don't really seem to be (subjective).

There are a handful of population centers, and a sprinkling of homes and small communities between miles and miles and miles of farmland.

In 1870 about 50% of people worked in agriculture (and you can correlate it with where they lived: where the farmland was, i.e.

North Korea is not great farmland, and the farming there is in dire need of mechanisation, and the distribution system is how you imagine.

Unfortunately, I think the more realistic outcome would be that the rest of the world would be turned into farmland or pastureland.

Ricardo lamented over the inequitable distribution of good farmland...

There's a TON of room for more farmland.

"If every neighborhood had its own vertical farm, how many fewer semis would be choking up the metro area?" In my area - Southern Ontario -- farmland is cheap and plentiful, a lot of it turning to brush or "hobby" farms (which usually means farms that don't really produce).

Farmland and mines (or the minerals in them) seem to be limited world-wide and maybe good investments (though we may improve artificial ways to produce food that are less dependent on land).