Well. The answers have covered the topic, but I will add my two cents as well! And I will end with a new question, so please help me out by lending your thoughts.
First, for point of reference, I am a photographer, I use a powershot s95, a 5D mark III, Leica M9, a hasselblad V system with film and 50mp digital back, and a 4x5 film camera, with an Imacon 949 scanner. So from point and shoot, all the way to just about the best scanner money can buy, I have played with and used them all.
Pixels and resolution are not only about enlarging to huge sizes, though that is an issue. Print a series of 40x60 images, and you'll feel that you'd prefer to have more than 22mp. I am working on a print that large at the moment, I shot it with a canon 1Ds mkIII and I have no choice but to upres it. When you look closely at it, it looks like it has been up-resed. Step back 5-10 feet, it looks good.
Pixels are not the only thing that give resolution. Lens quality and technique are huge in this regard. I can tell a massive difference in a 8x10 print from my canon 5d3 compared to the same size print from a scan from my 4x5.
The detail visible in that print is dense and rich, looks like a different medium.
The same is true for Adams' prints. I went to a gallery in California and saw Adams prints, large and small, and was super impressed by the detail. He was a master.
I was just shooting a landscape project this week with my hasselblad. To maximize resolution, I used a tripod and cable release of course, but even used the mirror lockup switch, and then let my camera sit untouched on the tripod before I carefully pressed the release by cable, even when the shutter speed was not slow. An absolutely still camera greatly increases resolution.
So, is 22mp enough? Yes, absolutely, for normal use, and even a normal to large range of printing. Now that you have 22mp, focus on getting the best out of the pixels. Use good lenses, use good technique.
But! Here is the question that I have been wrestling with: is more than 22 or 24 mp too much for a 35mm sensor? Canon is probably developing a 39 or 50 mp camera, presumably with a 35mm sized sensor. The size of the pixels (pixel pitch) is very important. I think my hasselblad's 50mp are the same size individually as my Canon's 22. So that means, roughly speaking, if canon goes to 39 or 50 mp, the pixels will be many times smaller. This would make low light/noise performance suffer I think. But maybe it will cause other issues as well. Or will it? Perhaps the developers have some new tricks up their sleeves.
Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format. Any more and quality suffers. But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be. Can a 50mp canon be good? Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?