Yust saying but I would take Phobos and deimos over mars a lot of the near earth objects, the moon and even venus over mars. It's a ice desert more hostile then antartica in raw minerals you can't do better then the moon in volatiles take a icy asteroid. Even venus has more to offer then mars (abondend solar power and others)Even today, the Earthly Civilization has Space and Mars on our cards. But we just lack the technology to colonize them for an another few decades.
How are they not exploited? Inner Australia is majority European in ancestry. Northern Canada (the three territories) is about half European owing to higher birthrates in the indigenous community. Both areas are effectively opened up to the outside world and at one point thoroughly exploited to the absolute best of the European government's ability (and to some degree still are). I don't see how those wouldn't count as settler colonies under any reasonable definition. If they don't (as many non-natives there only stay for a few years), then the sort of colonialism there is far different than South Africa, Latin America, or really many other places.With more Technological advancements, Inner Australia, Northern Canada and Sahara and Arabian deserts could have been exploited. But all other greener regions in the Old World were quite filled by then. Siberia can be counted as it was a fairly empty land that was colonized by the Russians. That's pretty much it, for any settled colonies in the World.
Inner Australia and Northern Canada are European majority but they are quite sparse in population. If they need to be populated in a larger number, as with the Southern coast of Australia or other parts in USA and Canada, you would need higher technologies. Same applies for Northern Scandinavia. Anno 2205 by Ubisoft has the Tundra expansion. So it takes at least that level of technology to colonize Northern Scandinavia and Northern Canada. Inner Australia can be compared to Sahara, Central Asian and Middle Eastern deserts. You need more technology to lay out settlements there.How are they not exploited? Inner Australia is majority European in ancestry. Northern Canada (the three territories) is about half European owing to higher birthrates in the indigenous community. Both areas are effectively opened up to the outside world and at one point thoroughly exploited to the absolute best of the European government's ability (and to some degree still are). I don't see how those wouldn't count as settler colonies under any reasonable definition. If they don't (as many non-natives there only stay for a few years), then the sort of colonialism there is far different than South Africa, Latin America, or really many other places.
The countries of the 20th Century and beyond may be cautious of Environmental impacts as these are large and long term, in nature.The number one thing you could do is nerf the environmentalist movement which (IMO rightfully) killed these proposals.
There is no "higher level of technology" needed because the technology needed to colonise those areas more extensive is already available today (and yesterday, something like the new Russian icebreaker Arktika could've easily been completed by the late 90s) It's all a matter of logistics and how much comfort people are demanding. The hardy Soviet Man made do with far less in Russian Siberia and was also effectively force-migrated through state programs Canada or most democratic nations wouldn't dream of doing. At least not if you weren't indigenous, like when they "relocated" Inuit families to remote islands. As for what logistics? All you need are icebreakers, more roads, and more ice road truckers and a government bank account willing to subsidize colonial programs that are destructive on the environment and absolutely needless. If you had a "higher level of technology", you're still out of luck, because said technology will just make the rest of country even more efficient and still won't require all sorts of new roads, expanded ports, and above all, colonists.Inner Australia and Northern Canada are European majority but they are quite sparse in population. If they need to be populated in a larger number, as with the Southern coast of Australia or other parts in USA and Canada, you would need higher technologies. Same applies for Northern Scandinavia. Anno 2205 by Ubisoft has the Tundra expansion. So it takes at least that level of technology to colonize Northern Scandinavia and Northern Canada. Inner Australia can be compared to Sahara, Central Asian and Middle Eastern deserts. You need more technology to lay out settlements there.
I didn't mention about the OTL Modern World (post 1900s) as any colonization of those regions in that manner you mentioned is an absolute waste and a negative impact, for sure.There is no "higher level of technology" needed because the technology needed to colonise those areas more extensive is already available today (and yesterday, something like the new Russian icebreaker Arktika could've easily been completed by the late 90s) It's all a matter of logistics and how much comfort people are demanding. The hardy Soviet Man made do with far less in Russian Siberia and was also effectively force-migrated through state programs Canada or most democratic nations wouldn't dream of doing. At least not if you weren't indigenous, like when they "relocated" Inuit families to remote islands. As for what logistics? All you need are icebreakers, more roads, and more ice road truckers and a government bank account willing to subsidize colonial programs that are destructive on the environment and absolutely needless. If you had a "higher level of technology", you're still out of luck, because said technology will just make the rest of country even more efficient and still won't require all sorts of new roads, expanded ports, and above all, colonists.
Just look at cities like Yakutsk. 300,000+ people and built on permafrost in one of the coldest environments outside of Antarctica, founded in the 17th century, with most of its growth in the 20th century. No futuristic technology needed, just human willpower.
There's a huge difference between settling, say, Kenya, and settling the frozen wastes of Canada. It's far more profitable to rule over Kenyans and send in the white settlers on the side to the highlands while there is barely anything to gain out of the frozen north aside from its mineral wealth and secondary concerns like hydropower.
No comparison between Inner Australia and Central Asia/Middle East. Different environment and far more empty than those places in terms of native population thanks to massacres and epidemics. Again, "higher technology" is useless when it's been colonised to about as much as politics will allow. Why do any of these places need millions of people to count as settler colonies?
You're not wrong, but there are places where it could or did work, especially with the improvements of the twentieth century.How would that be? Wouldn't the climate in those parts of Africa be too harsh to Europeans for settlement? And in subsaharan Africa's case, the host of tropical diseases and the lack of modern medicine (correct me if I'm wrong)?
How would that be? Wouldn't the climate in those parts of Africa be too harsh to Europeans for settlement? And in subsaharan Africa's case, the host of tropical diseases and the lack of modern medicine (correct me if I'm wrong)?
Possible. However, Air-Conditioning and Oil (or an equivalent development) need to be discovered more prior to OTL. Central Arabian Desert is the most likely region. Oil is plenty and lands are emptier.Can parts of the Middle East outside of Israel/Palestine become settler colonies once air conditioning becomes common?
They are not lacking in oil. Algeria and Libya both have significant oil and natural gas fields in the Sahara.North Africa and Sahara desert are however, lacking in Oil and hence not possible for European settled colonies unless some Renewable Technologies are invented, early on, which would need an earlier Technological development as I have written in the past.