**Please read this entire message**
---
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations
* Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts (Rule 2).
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Because it's mostly desert and has [minimal arable land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country). Only 4% of the land is arable in Australia, by comparison, 16% of the US' land is arable. The other major problem is there are no navigable rivers in Australia like the Mississippi, Danube, Rhine, Volga, Yangtze, Mekong, Nile, etc. All these rivers support huge populations and allow cargo to freely move up and down them.
[Real Life Lore](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnB_8Zm9lPk) has a great video on it.
It's also a major reason why Africa remains economically behind other parts of the world, despite having massive natural resources.
If you find that kind of thing interesting, I recommend the book Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall
Yes, the other big factor is the climate, which in Europe is good enough for long enough to grow two crops a year, yet cold anough to kill off many diseases over winter. But navigable waterways also bring with them fertile flood plains, suitable for growing crops.
The less effort that was spent having to stay alive meant that more effort was available to be spent on education, technology, scientific study, etc (and of course weapon development) which meant that society could advance more quickly.
Yeah, that definitely didn't help.
But malaria was the biggest reason the interior resisted Colonialism for as long as it did, until europeans discovered quinine.
Same with Saudi Arabia actually. Zero rivers and mostly desert. If Saudi Arabia didn’t have oil, they would be one of the poorest countries in the world.
I think not a lot of usable land in the middle mean ports in Australia aren't quite the hubs to the interior of a continent that they are else where in the world. The ports kinda just have to sustain the coast, whereas elsewhere they are seeing traffic that will eventually go to a much larger area, and thus the ports naturally need more workers and the whole port town grows. If you don't really have anywhere to bring things after they get to a port, the port town won't grow as much.
For the most part it isn't really about the water being navigable. Navigable waters are mostly required to create large population centers inland.
The real population limiter is food production and river water can irrigate large amounts of farmland. You cannot water plants with salt water so the ocean won't do.
Those are also mostly historical factors that explained why there weren't more Aboriginals when Europeans arrived. The answer for modern Australia is mostly that immigration got started late and never really got going because it was so remote and unhospitable.
As I said, in the case of Australia those are mostly historical factors that would have applied more to the native population. Modern Australia is relatively sparsely populated mostly because immigration started late and never really picked up the pace because of remoteness and inhospitability.
Your edit about historical factors makes the comment more feasible. I'd also edit the earlier paragraphs to make it past tense if that is now your intention.
In modern-days it's the political, economic and religious factors but the geographic & geological ones that decide a nation's population and ethnic ingredient, isn't it?
I suppose there could be a distinction to be made depending on the figures you're looking at?
Sometimes I'll see arable land defined simply as a measure of square footage or % of the overall size of the country (like it seems, with this figure), but sometimes the figure is tempered by what land is arable AND actually commercially viable/reachable
I.e. I could have scores of land available for farming in a location that's just impossible to get produce in and out of economically. I could choose not to count that area in my count of arable land.
Australia has a very hostile climate and very challenging geography. It's a very challenging environment for human settlements and townships to flourish in, other than certain areas, and these areas (south east, mostly) are populated and flourish.
[https://www.guideoftheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/map/australia\_shaded\_relief\_map\_with\_major\_urban\_areas.jpg](https://www.guideoftheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/map/australia_shaded_relief_map_with_major_urban_areas.jpg)
Also factor in that Australia was fairly late to the human development party. Early Australians came from Asia, but the terrain and geography prevented large scale flourishing. When the Europeans arrived, they were also limited by the hostile climate and terrain, hence their settlements were mainly concentrated in the temperate areas that could sustain farming.
Two things Australians say when we go to a foreign country for the first time "It's so green!" And "There's so much water!" We just didn't have the arable land or water to have the kind of historical population growth other countries enjoyed.
Short answer for why the habitable areas are less populated is critical mass. There are many coastal areas that could sustain 1 million+ populations, but the infrastructure isn't there, so people don't want to live there. If they were already large cities with work/education/entertainment etc opportunities people would happily move there. But they aren't.
The major cities are still relatively small by international standards so are likely to grow more before the regional cities become substantially larger.
The middle of Australia is basically a big desert. The majority of the population lives on the coast for a reason, so there’s less places for people to concentrate.
Our PM is solving this problem right now by bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year. Normally, that would be fine, but he's forgot these people actually need somewhere to live and one of our national sports is "Construction Collapse Bingo" where every week a building company goes under and we all try to guess who it will be. So while we're bringing in a whole bunch of people, we didn't actually bother to build homes/units/cardboard boxes for them.
Australia's isolated location and small population means that construction is just a pain. They don't have the economies of scale to make certain materials/chemicals/equipment themselves cheaply but it's also expensive to import those things due to the isolation.
It's the same reason why construction in Hawaii is so expensive.
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/jvr4bkl/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
For the same reason Canada is less populous: they started late and had less popularity as a result.
The US was the prime focus for British and European colonization in general and had 2.5 million europeans by the time of the war in 1776. In contrast, Canada had about 90k and oz was about 20.
People are going to move to places where there are other people and the infrastructure is available. You could get off a boat in New York and get started in a city similar to what you left; such was not the case in, say, Annapolis Royale or Botany Bay.
Also for the same reason as Canada: The vast majority of the land is unsuitable for settlement — the Outback in Australia; the Canadian shield, boreal forest, mountains and tundra in Canada. (Not that there isn't room for there to be more people in the parts that are suitable).
The model of Canadian settlement vs. USian settlement is instructive. French Canada was explorers in canoes who wanted fur. English America was planters who wanted tobacco. Very different land-use models; very different population densities.
Good answer. I don't understand why all the top comments are incorrectly pointing to arable land when a quick google shows Australia exports 70% of our agricultural production. We have higher quality and more readily available fresh produce than most of the world.
Ineffectual government and NIMBYism.
Simple fact is, it really shouldn't be that hard to get more people here. If there was united government action from national to local level and the actual willpower to succeed at it, the population of Australia could double in a decade.
But that desire isn't there. We've squabbled over getting a high speed rail connection for 4 decades now with no concrete plan and just upgrading our internet to 'acceptable' levels was a near disaster. Our government would prefer to spend time scoring cheap points at the opposition rather get their shit together.
Beyond that, the people don't want it either. The Australian dream is still a freestanding home with front and backyards plus a garage if you're feeling fancy. (this despite something like 50% of below 40 people having even the slightest hope of affording it). You tell people you think Australia needs a little more high density buildings, get a couple more immigrants in, maybe spread out the metropolitan areas so it's not just the state capitals? You get voted out.
Because everything wants to kill you everywhere..sharks, lionfish, jellyfish, spiders, snakes, gympie gympie (a plant with the most painful sting in the world that causes animals to kill themselves if they touch) blazing heat, wildfires, floods.
Australia is in every sense a hostile place.
The temperature is high, it's dry and the animals especially the smaller ones are some of the deadliest on the planet.
Would be one of the last places on earth i want to live or visit.
So it's not hot? It's not dry? It hasn't some of deadliest animals?
We aren't only talking about Sydney, we are talking about the whole island including the middle part.
No one lives in the middle part. I've never seen desert in my entire life. I have the heater turned on now because it's cold outside. The only deadly animal I've seen in nature is a red back spider like twice in my entire life.
When I look outside I see green everywhere. It's like that along the entire east coast where the vast majority live. Australia is much safer than North America, we don't have bears, wolves, cougars or moose. To me it is utterly insane that if you went hiking you have to worry about animals like that.
Have you even read the question?
Why is Australia so less populous? Because the middle is very hostile for living and that's why people only live there, where you live. And that's why the country looks soo big and is so less populous.
The Sahara is cold in the night too... but people always talk about the heat and sun in the Sahara. The same goes for Australia.
I would rather deal with Bears, wolves, cougars or moose, because i can see the from far away, i can shoot them, i would be ready in a place like this for any attack. They won't sneak in my house through a 1cm hole. In Australia you have spiders, snakes, scorpions etc. You don't see them until they sting or bite you. They could be in every shoe.
Again: We are talking about the places in Australia were no one lives. Not the big citys.
> They won't sneak in my house through a 1cm hole. In Australia you have spiders, snakes, scorpions etc. You don't see them until they sting or bite you. They could be in every shoe
yikes, you're paranoid af. that doesn't happen. ever
Then tell me, wise man or woman, why does nobody live in the fucking middle? Why are only like 5% of the whole island populated?
Please write down facts, not your feelings.
It's easier to name the things that won't kill you there than it is to name the countless deadly. Also you have to have a minimum of 25k in your savings to become a citizen. Something most people don't have.
You wrote three things and they're all wrong. Congratulations. You live in the USA with bears, mountain lions, snakes and alligators. The most deadly animal in Australia is the horse. You think some tiny spider that hasn't killed anyone in decades is the limiting factor for population growth?
>Also you have to have a minimum of 25k in your savings to become a citizen.
No one checked my bank balance when I became a citizen. Most people are just born with it, just like anywhere else.
>Something most people don't have.
Median savings in Australia is $33k, so yeah, more people have that than don't.
Yeah I never get when people say this about Australia. We don't have grizzlies mountain lions or shit like that. The snakes here won't get you unless you are trying to get killed, nor the spiders. Crocodiles aren't everywhere in the country etc
**Please read this entire message**
---
Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).
Off-topic discussion is not allowed at the top level at all, and discouraged elsewhere in the thread.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/jvpo6xf/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Two big factors, water and late colonisation.
Water outside the coastal areas is problematic, normally we get about two good years with rain, three ok years that are bit dry and/or rarely too much rain that leads to floods and bad five years of too little rain. Then you get times when there is a ten or twenty year drought and only the coast gets enough rain.
Late colonisation is a big factor with only a trickle of convicts and settlers compared to the rest of the world as it cost more to get here and there wasn't much when you did. This wasn't helped by the fact that 2/3 of the convicts were men. It wan't until the gold rush in mid 1800's that pulled a lot of people in. Then there was the "white Australia" policy that tried to keep anyone not British or at least northern European out. This only changed after the WWII and we only fully opened up in 1970's.
Human beings drink water to survive. The human body is mostly composed of water. People must drink water at least every two days in order to stay alive. They must drink more water in desert climates, such as the vast majority of Australia people need water in order to farm for plants and to raise livestock.
People need food in order to survive and livestock, and plants need water to grow. Without water, human beings will dehydrate and starve starvation means death which means a much smaller population can live in desert climates than on coastal territories with water.
Large populations require large amounts of water, which are not available in the vast majority of desert Australian territories.
1) There's a reason The Brits found it useful as a dumping lot for felons. Steal a pig? Off to the hot land down undah. It's very unforgiving, mostly arid, and a lack of natural rivers inland basically traps people on the edges of the continent
2) Australia doesn't have much land good for farming. Only 4% of its land is good for that, which put a natural limit on how many people the land could support before globalization.
3) Australia really didn't have a chance to develop until very recently; The indigenes couldn't make much progress due to the landscape. Europeans only came in ~230 years ago, and for most of that time they still didn't have means of making progress.
**Please read this entire message** --- Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations * Straightforward or factual queries are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is meant for simplifying complex concepts (Rule 2). --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.**
Because it's mostly desert and has [minimal arable land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country). Only 4% of the land is arable in Australia, by comparison, 16% of the US' land is arable. The other major problem is there are no navigable rivers in Australia like the Mississippi, Danube, Rhine, Volga, Yangtze, Mekong, Nile, etc. All these rivers support huge populations and allow cargo to freely move up and down them. [Real Life Lore](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnB_8Zm9lPk) has a great video on it.
I'd never really thought about the lack of navigable rivers before. Kind of explains a lot!
It's also a major reason why Africa remains economically behind other parts of the world, despite having massive natural resources. If you find that kind of thing interesting, I recommend the book Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall
>a major reason why Africa remains economically behind other parts of the world That and malaria...
And corruption
Yes, the other big factor is the climate, which in Europe is good enough for long enough to grow two crops a year, yet cold anough to kill off many diseases over winter. But navigable waterways also bring with them fertile flood plains, suitable for growing crops. The less effort that was spent having to stay alive meant that more effort was available to be spent on education, technology, scientific study, etc (and of course weapon development) which meant that society could advance more quickly.
And the continued exploitation of its natural resources by external forces
Yeah, that definitely didn't help. But malaria was the biggest reason the interior resisted Colonialism for as long as it did, until europeans discovered quinine.
Nice one, cheers!
Same with Saudi Arabia actually. Zero rivers and mostly desert. If Saudi Arabia didn’t have oil, they would be one of the poorest countries in the world.
But for the coastal regions the whole ocean is navigable, and far more convenient than any river or canal.
Much much much more dangerous than many rivers though surely? Tides, rocks, currents, creatures, winds etcetcetc?
It also doesn't move goods inland like a river would.
Nor does it provide a plentiful source of fresh water.
I think not a lot of usable land in the middle mean ports in Australia aren't quite the hubs to the interior of a continent that they are else where in the world. The ports kinda just have to sustain the coast, whereas elsewhere they are seeing traffic that will eventually go to a much larger area, and thus the ports naturally need more workers and the whole port town grows. If you don't really have anywhere to bring things after they get to a port, the port town won't grow as much.
For the most part it isn't really about the water being navigable. Navigable waters are mostly required to create large population centers inland. The real population limiter is food production and river water can irrigate large amounts of farmland. You cannot water plants with salt water so the ocean won't do. Those are also mostly historical factors that explained why there weren't more Aboriginals when Europeans arrived. The answer for modern Australia is mostly that immigration got started late and never really got going because it was so remote and unhospitable.
Australia exports 70% of our agricultural production. Food production is not putting any limit on population.
As I said, in the case of Australia those are mostly historical factors that would have applied more to the native population. Modern Australia is relatively sparsely populated mostly because immigration started late and never really picked up the pace because of remoteness and inhospitability.
Your edit about historical factors makes the comment more feasible. I'd also edit the earlier paragraphs to make it past tense if that is now your intention.
In modern-days it's the political, economic and religious factors but the geographic & geological ones that decide a nation's population and ethnic ingredient, isn't it?
Was coming here to mention Real Life Lore. Just watched his North Korea video earlier tonight.
That is partly false, because Australia has more arable lands than Indonesia, which has the largest arable lands in the nearby Southeast Asia area
I suppose there could be a distinction to be made depending on the figures you're looking at? Sometimes I'll see arable land defined simply as a measure of square footage or % of the overall size of the country (like it seems, with this figure), but sometimes the figure is tempered by what land is arable AND actually commercially viable/reachable I.e. I could have scores of land available for farming in a location that's just impossible to get produce in and out of economically. I could choose not to count that area in my count of arable land.
Also people tend to build near/on the arable land occupying large amounts of said land with housing and industry.
TBF the Mekong isn’t really navigable anymore because there are so many dams (fuck the CCP), but I get where you are coming from.
Just watched that video. Great rec
Australia has a very hostile climate and very challenging geography. It's a very challenging environment for human settlements and townships to flourish in, other than certain areas, and these areas (south east, mostly) are populated and flourish. [https://www.guideoftheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/map/australia\_shaded\_relief\_map\_with\_major\_urban\_areas.jpg](https://www.guideoftheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/map/australia_shaded_relief_map_with_major_urban_areas.jpg) Also factor in that Australia was fairly late to the human development party. Early Australians came from Asia, but the terrain and geography prevented large scale flourishing. When the Europeans arrived, they were also limited by the hostile climate and terrain, hence their settlements were mainly concentrated in the temperate areas that could sustain farming.
Drop bears are also a problem.
Don't forget the Emus. Never forget the Emus!
I will never forget the emus.
and bushrangers too, like dear old Ned Kelly.
Two things Australians say when we go to a foreign country for the first time "It's so green!" And "There's so much water!" We just didn't have the arable land or water to have the kind of historical population growth other countries enjoyed.
That's exactly what I said when I went to Vienna...
Me the first time I went to Germany 😂 it was wild sitting on the bus and watching seemingly endless green fields and forests pass by
Short answer for why the habitable areas are less populated is critical mass. There are many coastal areas that could sustain 1 million+ populations, but the infrastructure isn't there, so people don't want to live there. If they were already large cities with work/education/entertainment etc opportunities people would happily move there. But they aren't. The major cities are still relatively small by international standards so are likely to grow more before the regional cities become substantially larger.
The middle of Australia is basically a big desert. The majority of the population lives on the coast for a reason, so there’s less places for people to concentrate.
Our PM is solving this problem right now by bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants per year. Normally, that would be fine, but he's forgot these people actually need somewhere to live and one of our national sports is "Construction Collapse Bingo" where every week a building company goes under and we all try to guess who it will be. So while we're bringing in a whole bunch of people, we didn't actually bother to build homes/units/cardboard boxes for them.
Australia's isolated location and small population means that construction is just a pain. They don't have the economies of scale to make certain materials/chemicals/equipment themselves cheaply but it's also expensive to import those things due to the isolation. It's the same reason why construction in Hawaii is so expensive.
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/jvr4bkl/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
For the same reason Canada is less populous: they started late and had less popularity as a result. The US was the prime focus for British and European colonization in general and had 2.5 million europeans by the time of the war in 1776. In contrast, Canada had about 90k and oz was about 20. People are going to move to places where there are other people and the infrastructure is available. You could get off a boat in New York and get started in a city similar to what you left; such was not the case in, say, Annapolis Royale or Botany Bay.
Also for the same reason as Canada: The vast majority of the land is unsuitable for settlement — the Outback in Australia; the Canadian shield, boreal forest, mountains and tundra in Canada. (Not that there isn't room for there to be more people in the parts that are suitable).
The model of Canadian settlement vs. USian settlement is instructive. French Canada was explorers in canoes who wanted fur. English America was planters who wanted tobacco. Very different land-use models; very different population densities.
Thank you for specifying that the figures you mention are settlers of European descent. All these places already had indigenous people in them.
[удалено]
Good answer. I don't understand why all the top comments are incorrectly pointing to arable land when a quick google shows Australia exports 70% of our agricultural production. We have higher quality and more readily available fresh produce than most of the world.
Comparing to what? Sahara and Kalahari are even less populous.
Ineffectual government and NIMBYism. Simple fact is, it really shouldn't be that hard to get more people here. If there was united government action from national to local level and the actual willpower to succeed at it, the population of Australia could double in a decade. But that desire isn't there. We've squabbled over getting a high speed rail connection for 4 decades now with no concrete plan and just upgrading our internet to 'acceptable' levels was a near disaster. Our government would prefer to spend time scoring cheap points at the opposition rather get their shit together. Beyond that, the people don't want it either. The Australian dream is still a freestanding home with front and backyards plus a garage if you're feeling fancy. (this despite something like 50% of below 40 people having even the slightest hope of affording it). You tell people you think Australia needs a little more high density buildings, get a couple more immigrants in, maybe spread out the metropolitan areas so it's not just the state capitals? You get voted out.
Good.
Because everything wants to kill you everywhere..sharks, lionfish, jellyfish, spiders, snakes, gympie gympie (a plant with the most painful sting in the world that causes animals to kill themselves if they touch) blazing heat, wildfires, floods.
And they lost the Emu war.
You misspelled "wars" 😄
And then there's iocane powder.
Kangaroos are alright then? :P
Not *everything*. Some of the sheep are (relatively, anyway) harmless. Unless provoked.
Swooping season
Australia is in every sense a hostile place. The temperature is high, it's dry and the animals especially the smaller ones are some of the deadliest on the planet. Would be one of the last places on earth i want to live or visit.
yeah no, as an Australian it's none of that
So it's not hot? It's not dry? It hasn't some of deadliest animals? We aren't only talking about Sydney, we are talking about the whole island including the middle part.
No one lives in the middle part. I've never seen desert in my entire life. I have the heater turned on now because it's cold outside. The only deadly animal I've seen in nature is a red back spider like twice in my entire life. When I look outside I see green everywhere. It's like that along the entire east coast where the vast majority live. Australia is much safer than North America, we don't have bears, wolves, cougars or moose. To me it is utterly insane that if you went hiking you have to worry about animals like that.
Have you even read the question? Why is Australia so less populous? Because the middle is very hostile for living and that's why people only live there, where you live. And that's why the country looks soo big and is so less populous. The Sahara is cold in the night too... but people always talk about the heat and sun in the Sahara. The same goes for Australia. I would rather deal with Bears, wolves, cougars or moose, because i can see the from far away, i can shoot them, i would be ready in a place like this for any attack. They won't sneak in my house through a 1cm hole. In Australia you have spiders, snakes, scorpions etc. You don't see them until they sting or bite you. They could be in every shoe. Again: We are talking about the places in Australia were no one lives. Not the big citys.
> They won't sneak in my house through a 1cm hole. In Australia you have spiders, snakes, scorpions etc. You don't see them until they sting or bite you. They could be in every shoe yikes, you're paranoid af. that doesn't happen. ever
Then tell me, wise man or woman, why does nobody live in the fucking middle? Why are only like 5% of the whole island populated? Please write down facts, not your feelings.
yeah no
It's easier to name the things that won't kill you there than it is to name the countless deadly. Also you have to have a minimum of 25k in your savings to become a citizen. Something most people don't have.
This has got to be one of the worst answers in eli5 history. Congrats!!!
Thanks
You wrote three things and they're all wrong. Congratulations. You live in the USA with bears, mountain lions, snakes and alligators. The most deadly animal in Australia is the horse. You think some tiny spider that hasn't killed anyone in decades is the limiting factor for population growth? >Also you have to have a minimum of 25k in your savings to become a citizen. No one checked my bank balance when I became a citizen. Most people are just born with it, just like anywhere else. >Something most people don't have. Median savings in Australia is $33k, so yeah, more people have that than don't.
Yeah I never get when people say this about Australia. We don't have grizzlies mountain lions or shit like that. The snakes here won't get you unless you are trying to get killed, nor the spiders. Crocodiles aren't everywhere in the country etc
Awesome, thanks
[удалено]
**Please read this entire message** --- Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Top level comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/top_level_comment) (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3). Off-topic discussion is not allowed at the top level at all, and discouraged elsewhere in the thread. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15o2zsk/-/jvpo6xf/%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.**
Two big factors, water and late colonisation. Water outside the coastal areas is problematic, normally we get about two good years with rain, three ok years that are bit dry and/or rarely too much rain that leads to floods and bad five years of too little rain. Then you get times when there is a ten or twenty year drought and only the coast gets enough rain. Late colonisation is a big factor with only a trickle of convicts and settlers compared to the rest of the world as it cost more to get here and there wasn't much when you did. This wasn't helped by the fact that 2/3 of the convicts were men. It wan't until the gold rush in mid 1800's that pulled a lot of people in. Then there was the "white Australia" policy that tried to keep anyone not British or at least northern European out. This only changed after the WWII and we only fully opened up in 1970's.
Fun Fact: the British once detonated a nuke to test it in the Australian Outback, and no one noticed.
Human beings drink water to survive. The human body is mostly composed of water. People must drink water at least every two days in order to stay alive. They must drink more water in desert climates, such as the vast majority of Australia people need water in order to farm for plants and to raise livestock. People need food in order to survive and livestock, and plants need water to grow. Without water, human beings will dehydrate and starve starvation means death which means a much smaller population can live in desert climates than on coastal territories with water. Large populations require large amounts of water, which are not available in the vast majority of desert Australian territories.
1) There's a reason The Brits found it useful as a dumping lot for felons. Steal a pig? Off to the hot land down undah. It's very unforgiving, mostly arid, and a lack of natural rivers inland basically traps people on the edges of the continent 2) Australia doesn't have much land good for farming. Only 4% of its land is good for that, which put a natural limit on how many people the land could support before globalization. 3) Australia really didn't have a chance to develop until very recently; The indigenes couldn't make much progress due to the landscape. Europeans only came in ~230 years ago, and for most of that time they still didn't have means of making progress.
You have pretty good population control when everything tries to kill you as soon as you step outside