> It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Mo

> It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana. You're just trading problems here. If you push everyone into Montana, now you have a resource moving problem. And the assumption "We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana" seems especially suspect. Have you been to Montana? It's the least populated state for a reason. Many of them actually. You seem to think your thoughts are obviously right, but you ignored massive complexity. Not to mention, I don't think anyone is actually arguing to "eliminate farm land so that we can fit more humans on it." The problem is the water usage, not trying to change farmland into apartment buildings.