Attached is a map of Australia's population density per square kilometer. As you can see (if you open your eyes) the only place that is less densely populated than the entire tropical north is the arid desert. It is hardly the fertile crescent Falah makes it out to be - at least not in terms of European farming methods. This area of low population stretches almost all the way from Cairns to Perth. The dot at the top of the NT is Darwin - population 130 thousand.

If you restricted the data to immigrants of European descent, it would look even emptier, if that is possible.

You can clearly see the band of high population density. This is clearly not dictated by friendly natives, but by the suitability of the land for European farming methods. Even the widespread use of air conditioning won't get white people to live in the far north.

Perhaps Falah can point out on the map where hostile aborigines kept the immigrants at bay.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 2:00pm:


I will let you in on a little secret Freeliar. Population density does not prove one way or the other the agricultural potential of land.

The stupidity of you using that maps is obvious.

Arnhem Land is the same colour on that map as much of the farmland around the Murray and Darling Rivers! Why is that Freeliar?

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 2:14pm:




This map shows the Aboriginal Land around the fertile coast in the Northern Territory

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 2:14pm:


How so. Most farming areas have low population densities.

Quote:


You have to go a long way inland to get a population density that low. The reason of course is that the river system drains a lot of arid desert. [/quote]

I have been to those ares Freeliar and seen plenty of farms in the Mildura and Swan Hill areas on the Victorian NSW border which is shown in themap as having the same colour as Arnhem Land.

In fact I have visited much of the areas on the map that are given this yellow colour , and found that it is nearly all agricultural Land.

I have even visited much of the lowest density coloured areas (green) and found that there cattle stations on much of this land as well.

Travel Australia, and you will find cattle stations on most of the land not occupied by other farming. It is usually only in harsh deserts or mountains that you find no agriculture. Arnhem Land is neither desert or mountain.

Falah's thesis:

Quote:


I see. Can you explain why the movement of white people into the area appears to have nothing at all to do with the land you claim was controlled by hostile aborigines? Doesn't it look more like the hostility of the aborigines was protected by their remoteness, rather than the other way round?

Quote:


I'll give you a hint Falah, how big does the station have to be in order to stay afloat? It is hardly going to support a high population density, and is only possible because of the ease with which you can maintain such a large area of land out there. Did you know that a lot of these farms are becoming less profitable? Some are even collapsing completely and no-one is bothering to farm the land. And no, this is not because of hostile aborigines driving them off the land.

Quote:


Populations:
Ouyen:      1 000
Mildura:   30 000
Swan Hill: 10 000

The red area represents densities of 1 000  to 10 000 people per square kilometer.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 3:02pm:



Freeliar, the middle of Australia is actually just as remote and less hospitable country, yet you will find cattle stations even there in the desert. Why no cattle stations in green Arnhem Land?


freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 3:02pm:


The fact is Freeliar that people Europeans have dispossesed Aborigines in less fertile land than Arnhem Land and set up cattle stations. Arnhem Land is huge could support a lot of cattle. Yet strangely no cattle station there.

Arnhem Land is 100,000 km². The country is somewhat similar to that shown on the TV show Keeping Up With The Jones'. That family owned only 5000 km2 of land near the NT/WA border. Looked they were doing well. They can even afford multiple helicopters and lots of equipment, must be profitable.

Quote:


Quote:


Populations:
Ouyen:      1 000
Mildura:   30 000
Swan Hill: 10 000

The red area represents densities of 1 000  to 10 000 people per square kilometer. [/quote]


So why is Mildura and Swan Hill not represented then? Did you provide a dodgy map? I know the area well, and I can tell you that the red dot is not where Mildura or Swan Hill is.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:


I guess your limited intelligence just wont get it.

The Arnhem Land area has a higher population density than many areas which have cattle stations. How can that be Freediver? If places with lower population de3nsity have catlle stations, then surely Arnhem Land could support cattle - according to your logic.


freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:


Yes, but Arnhem Land is about 20 times bigger, and of similar type of land. Therefore Arnhem Land should be able to support at least 20 of these profitable cattle stations.


freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:




So I guess you haven't driven across the Nullarbor Plain, which is more than 1000 km across the coast and all you see in it is the one roadhouse.



freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:12pm:


Different type of land use Freeliar. Cattle grazing uses much more land than irrigated orchard farms.

But judging by the barren lands to the south, Arnhem Land should be able to support hundreds of thousands of cattle.




This map shows that all the northern coast is grazed by cattle - except the areas where Macassans traded in Arnhem Land and the Kimberley. The red areas are those lands used primarily for cattle grazing:



Macassan atrefacts and their tamarind trees are found in across Arnehm Land, West of Darwin and around the Kimberley coasts. None of these areas where evidence of Macassans has been found have cattle grazing.


This map shows how Arnhem Land is one of the more fertile areas of Australia:

Quote:


No Falah, that is not what I am saying. I am not attempting the rpedict the rpesence of cattle stations.

Quote:


And it is a lower value use of the land. That is why the graph of cattle density has no apparent correlation with land value, productivity, population density etc. It effectively shows the margins between high value land that is put to better use and low value land that is not much use for anything. Once again your evidence contradicts what you say, but you cannot see it.

If you want a representaive plot of farmability, plot the profitability per unit area. You will find that this is the single most reliable indicator of population density, other than population density itself. Variations can be easily put down to things like mining, government spending (capital cities, including Darwin) and tourism (beach areas backed by otherwise useless swamps). Hostile aborigines does not even make it onto the list.

Quote:


Are you suggesting the aborigines fought cattle? Can you explain your logic that the barren land indicates there should be lots of cattle nearby? Your own red and yellow map shows that cattle grazing areas are more common in the semi arid region.

Quote:


So it is flat and does not need clearing to raise cattle? Do you have any idea what cattle farming is like? Wet tropical areas introduce all sorts of problems.

Quote:


Wow, even under your best estimate, we get 20 profitable farms, in an area that would support hundreds of thousands of in the south.

Quote:


Again Falah, this is about European farming methods, not 'fertility' in some abstract sense. It's not like I haven't mentioned this before. Tropical coastlines like in the NT are about as far removed as you can get from European farming methods.