That's because most of the land isn't easily arable or irrigated. Like Northern Canada its land is completely unsuited to mass farming and major settlement. Which is why all of those settlements are by the coast; and most of the Agricultural regions border rivers; yet this hardly makes up 20% of the total surface area of Australia. And then there is the Aboroginal problem.
And the United States has terriority which is entirely similiar to the Gibson Desert or the Northern Terriority. (Perhaps Death Valley would be the closest - but that makes up a tiny fraction of the surface area.). Not to mention that Australia has in recent years had most extreme drought in the past 50 years. Living in such conditions just isn't appealing to anyone.
Ignoring the possibility that technology actually might be making the situation worse (ie. Global warming contributing to the drought.) have you thought the prospect of something that
might happen isn't going to entice many people into the interior?
Most people ignore the possibility of ourselves inventing mass-produced Jetpacks or Rocketships.
Except very few areas are suited to intensive agriculture. (And most of Western Australia iirc is given over to massive ranches which explains partly why population density is so low and why nearly everyone in WA lives in Perth.)
Of course people
might invent a better system which
might improve all local agricultural systems (but what will happen to the ranchers?) in the same way humans
might invent rocketships, which given the ability to colonize space would solve this immediatly.
I don't; but you seem to suggesting that people should basing essential decisions on what
might happen.
Poll
