Why has humanity been so slow to settle empty land like Australia, Canada, America, new Zealand and Greenland?These places can handle more than a billion people right now.20% of the world's population should be living in these countries, but instead they seem to have limited living space and trouble with construction? There is no food scarcity in these countries though.
>>17016010>Australia, Canada, AmericaFrontier living is excessively glamorized, in reality it was awful.>new Zealand and Greenland?One is extremely isolated and is basically Australia's DLC. The other is cold and the time and resources it would take to form a sizable urban core is too much for Denmark to pull off, it's still pretty much a neglected colonial holding.
>>17016021Why is it still awful? Those countries have extreme amounts of resources and no food scarcity now.
>>17016031>Why is it still awful?Read the "Frontier Living". No one wants to live in a far off area where the government could easily just flip flop and drop support at any moment every 4-5 years or mid way even. They can't even get their act together over creating more new housing that is built up to modern standards and keeping rent/house pricing in check.
>>17016033Is it purely a policy issue or a technological issue?
>>17016010Nobody has any money to do that because rich people have taken all the money. It would only happen if the rich people think they can make more money by doing it
>>17016010Stop spamming this garbage.
>>17016042But they can?
No, I don't want to pave over our vast natural bounty to house a gorillion jeets and fuck you for suggesting it.>>17016034They could settle a completely untamed and hostile continent on the other side of the world in the 1700s, of course it's a fucking policy issue. You think a modern first world country couldn't settle sparsely populated areas of its own territory if they really wanted to?
