What do you think is the "carrying capacity" of the USA ?

I think about half a billion people can live comfortably in the continental USA.
More than that and it will start being too crowded there.

Look at india and china how crowded they are and messy and dirty.

Attached: images-2.jpg (283x178, 10K)

There is still a lot of land in the US. For example, California has so many miles of empty space, but the majority of the population is located is discrete hubs.

Most of the unused land left in the US is in the Great Plains.

we need less people, not more.

A billion minimum. Maybe even two billions. Just not in California, which is already it's optimal carrying capacity IMO. Of course SoCali has water shortages, they are trying to run a megametropolis in a hot desert.

Most of China has very low population density. India has a less grating disparity, but it still has a very inequally distributed population.

Europe is quite smaller than the USA and has over half a billion people which has plenty of space. Urban planning in Europe is directed towards much more efficient mass transit, more efficient power grids, more efficient sewage systems, etc. In the USA the suburbs, which are very low density population-wise, make travel time much longer and maintenance cost for infrastructure much heavier than they should be.

*already PAST it's carrying capacity

We need more, they just need to be spread out further

it's already uncomfortable

Get out of nyc and la you arab or nigger.

>spreading out even further
You are already covering deserts with these 1-2 floor houses, with useless grass lawns.

Attached: urban sprawl cali.jpg (1024x1024, 370K)

That photi is cool.
Can you give me the source or tell me what city is it?.

This, the jew needs your apartment.

Worldwide birthrates are slowing to a crawl anyway. Quality of people is more important than quantity.

Despite the erroneous filename, this is a road in Phoenix, Arizona.

But the land has water supply issues. Wanting to pack people into the Mojave is like wanting to pack people into the Sahara. It's a bad idea.

I don't even live in a large city

Attached: riFUyD3.jpg (3571x1736, 687K)

It looks cool and spacious and comfortable.
What is your problem?.
Don't be a fucking arab or nigger or paki who complains about everything.

It looks like shit, but it's not like it would be some lush forest if those houses weren't there. It'd just be desert, or worse, a lot of tried up bushes that can easily start a brush-fire and threaten surrounding areas.

Depends.
Will they import 100% of their food? If you have to give up living space for agriculture still, I'd say 1billion.

A lot of food is wasted.
A lot of inefficient food is grown.
Do away with automation, so more people have jobs.

Attached: Map_of_US_per_Land_Use_Category.png (1200x630, 89K)

Indianapolis?

Looks nice, though I generally dislike capitals that were built for the sake of being capitals. They tend to have central positions which end up being too far from the shores - meaning good sea food is harder to come by, temperatures are more extreme and you only have small river beaches, if any. Like Madrid.

It isn't a matter of looking nice or bad. To power and water all those homes costs way more than power an equivalent number of homes in residential blocks. Watering all those tiny yards costs way more than watering one big public park.

And deserts are still nice biomes to have around. There would be more rock lizards, snakes, eagles, vultures, coyotes and stuff if there weren't cars going around, with their roads cutting off small animals from nearby spots.

Fuck off you disgusting cockroach

Hey be nice, spic mutt