If humanity lived at the density of Paris (21,438/km^2), we could all live in an area half the size of Texas (695,663 km^2).

So if we're talking about material post-scarcity, land is more than plentiful.

If humanity lived at the density of Wyoming (5.97/mi^2), we would have to get rid of 50% of the U.S. population or 98% of the world population, because only 147M people could fit on the habitable land on earth.

So yes, it is and it isn't. The question is how many people want to live in Wyoming-level densities vs. Paris-level densities, given the elimination of any cost constraints.

> The question is how many people want to live in Wyoming-level densities vs. Paris-level densities.

Do they get a choice? I want to live in Disneyland, but there's sadly a distinct lack of real estate available.

That's sort of the definition of a post-scarcity world. If people want stuff but can't have it because there's not enough to go around, that's pretty much the definition of scarcity.

The idea of a "post-scarcity" world is silly. Some resources will always be limited. Land, diamonds, prestige, etc.

What matters is, how scarce are the necessities of a moderately-comfortable life? I would posit that people who live in cities do just fine. If some people want more space, well, you can still work for it. Not all jobs are going to disappear.

> Land in the non-coastal western US or most of Canada or Australia is theoretically scarce too, but not so much in practice.

If the acquisition cost is >0, it is scarce in practice as well as theory.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is."

Land in these places can be something like $500/acre. That's not zero, but compared to the land prices people are more familiar with, it's as close as makes no difference in practice.

> Land in these places can be something like $500/acre. That's not zero

...and thus economically scarce...

> but compared to the land prices people are more familiar with, it's as close as makes no difference in practice.

It's very cheap. But very cheap things are still scarce. Something that isn't scarce has no price and everyone (even the poorest of the poor) who wants any quantity of it will have as much as they want without sacrificing anything.

Land in the places you describe is cheap. The price may even seem negligible to people in the upper middle class in the developed world. It's very much still scarce.

The difference between scarce and not scarce is not a matter of price, it's a fundamental difference of kind.