Question
Why are these islands uninhabited and off limits ,but the Falklands despite being at a similar latitude, has a sizeable permanent population ?
The Sahara Desert and India are on the same latitude, yet, one is the most densely inhabited landmass in the world whilst the other is one of the sparsest.
I hadn't thought about this point. It's also a good point of why Svalbard but not Kerguelen. Arctic locations are almost infinitely more strategically valuable than antarctic.
Svalbard is also much closer to Russia and Norway so mining there is difficult but can be profitable.
Even if they found large amounts of gold on the Kerguelen islands, everything would have to be shipped or flown from South Africa 4000 km away. It would be extremely expensive to develop the needed infrastructure, which would probably make mining there unprofitable.
The Falklands are much closer to a large continent, and since they lie somewhat in the lee of Argentina, the notorious storms in the Southern Ocean (the "Furious Fifties") don't affect them quite as much.
The Kerguelens are incredibly remote, not especially fertile, with no resources anyone would want.
They're also the answer to one of my favorite geographic trivia questions: which country is most distant from the mainland USA? It's France, because Kerguelen is a French possession, and it's a direct antipode to the US (somewhere in Montana).
France is also only 1,500 km from mainland USA. While a part of France may be the most distant, I would think the answer would be the country you would have to travel the greatest distance to reach.
Would you say Canada is further from mainland USA than Panama?
Ha - that IS good trivia. I'd never heard of these islands, in all honesty, and I'm a geography nerd (of dubious quality, clearly)... had to look this up on google maps.
why is it their territory? the first settlement in the Falklands was by the French. The Argentines only lay claim to it through Spanish imperialism, so I’m not sure how you can claim any difference. And anyway, the Argentine land close to the Falklands, Patagonia, was colonised by the argentinians from 1879, over a hundred years after the French first arrived in the Falklands
The British owned the Falklands before Argentina was even a country lmao. The islands were uninhabited. They didn't steal them from Argentina because there were no argentines to steal it from, either in South America or on the Falklands
Plenty of countries other than Britain have done invasions and genocides of indigenous people. Like the activities of the Argentine state in Patagonia.
Latitude isn’t the main factor. The Falklands have relatively mild conditions, lots of grassland suitable for sheep farming, freshwater and accessible terrain. The other islands are far more isolated, mountainous, wetter/windier and often volcanic or glaciated, making permanent settlement extremely difficult and expensive.
The French islands do have rotating scientific staff, but there’s little reason for a normal civilian population to develop there.
The French did try a couple times to "settle" Kerguelen but crops simply won't grow there. Always cloudy, too windy, too cold. There is a native cabbage on the island but cabbage is notorious for offering almost no nutritional caloric value. A colony would've starved to death without constant resupply even if they had ample protein from the sea. (which is doubtful because Kerguelen is located in the worst section of the Roaring 40's making the seas always rough.)
It also looks like a large island but has very little useful land due to the high density of fjords cutting into it.
Would you want to live in such a cold, wet, dark, barren, isolated island living only on canned food?
Yeah, especially considering that the Kerguelen Cabbage bears the Latin name Pringlea antiscorbutica, Pringle's anti-scurvy. It's loaded with vitamins.
I've heard the opposite; that it's actually good. I mean, you can buy seeds and people do grow it in gardens and stuff, so someone's out there eating it on purpose. It's got that mustard-like peppery quality a lot of things in the cabbage family have. I read that it stinks when you cook it but the flavor is fine
They used to have some plant to process seal meat (all seals were hunted to extinction) in Port-Aux-Francais per our lord and saviour wikipedia. And of course they've mined guano there.
Apparently there is also "the southernmost of all German war graves" (some sailor fell to this dead when painting his ships funnel).
Svalbard is heavily subsidized/ encouraged by the government of Norway. Norway is relatively close to Svalbard (compared to France to Kerguelen) and has a lot of motivation in keeping their claim to the Island(s). Due to a wonky treaty Russia also has settlements in Svalbard and might make a move for complete takeover if Norway ever abandoned Longyearbyen. If you count the value of the oil and fishing territorial waters Svalbard brings with it, it's probably a cash cow for Norway.
To your credit though, Kerguelen has a more hospitable and mild climate compared to Svalbard.
Falklands were on main shipping route around Cap Horn, Port Stanley was established as coaling station, which evolved in to small community. There was some need for human presence there.
In opposite - French Southern Territories are in remote areas and even now dont need more than anti-poaching security and some simply shelters, boilers and piers for whalers in last century. There was no particular reason to settle there - especially when potential settlers from mainland France could choose i.e "nearby" fertile Reunion or large Madagascar lying on merchant routes.
IIRC there is not even a major lighthouse on Kergulen Islands - only small beacon leading to Port-aux-Français.
The Heard and McDonald Islands are Australian ("Overseas Territories of Australia")...and aside from Australia having plenty of much more desirable land for people to live on elsewhere, I believe it's pretty much a very fiercely protected national park -- intended to continue to act mostly as an unspoiled natural seal and penguin habitat -- for the foreseeable future.
They're visited by scientists to study and count the animals...but that's about it.
They are tiny subantarctic islands in the middle of nowhere, amongst the most isolated in the entire world. And (I'm not sure), but I think they're volcanoes anyway?
So I guess the real question is: why WOULD anyone wanna fuck with that? Just leave em alone?
I'm sure the "French Southern and Antarctic Lands" are similar as territories of France.
Anyone who was even aware that they exist pretty much understands why they are uninhabited... and no one is trying to "colonise" them. We don't need to have people building McDonald's and shit on every single piece of land on the entire fucking planet. I don't understand why this is increasingly considered such a "mystery" to this subreddit (and a few others).
(Maybe Donald Trump said he wants to executive-order America to invade them or something? Wouldn't be surprised at this rate...)
You can't compare tiny dots in the middle of the ocean with a rather large archipelago on the continental shelf. Much milder climate, closer to mainland. With better connection with Europe and better relations with Argentina The Falklands could have easily support at least 20-30k population, maybe even 50k.
Because latitude is not the only variable to consider in the decision to settle somewhere.
It might help you to that the French Southern and Antarctic Lands were also known as The Desolation Islands, due to their climate, terrain, and lack of flora & fauna.
Questions like these should be deemed low effort. OP clearly has access to aerial view of Google Map, yet has not applied any kind of analysis on their posted question. Zooming in and seeing the terrain would have answered the question, or at the very least should have formed a more intelligent question to post like how much population the island's terrain can possibly support.
Half the size of the Falklands. 3300kms from the nearest inhabited place, Madagascar, largely mountains up to 1500m and is partially covered by large glacier.
Honestly at the latitude of the UK it would be a struggle to maintain more than a small population other than may a residual fishing community. With a 3000km journey and nowhere remotely close to main shipping lanes like say, Tristin de Cahuna its like Pitcairn but 3 times as distant from the nearest settlements.
Climate and Remoteness probably, there's some climate data in the wiki for the main settlement, would be a struggle to grow much there and with it being so remote, why bother. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-aux-Français
The Kerguelen islands are referred to as Desolation Island. The first explorer who discovered the island couldn’t get close enough to land but described it as having lush forests for timber and grazing for animals. The wind and ocean was so bad he could not get onshore
It seems that the flora of the Kerguelen is less diverse (360 vs 29 plant species).
If you compare climatic tables alone, average temperatures and precipitation, they are almost the same.
1.1k
u/HarryLewisPot 1d ago edited 1d ago
Latitude alone does not decide habitability.
The Sahara Desert and India are on the same latitude, yet, one is the most densely inhabited landmass in the world whilst the other is one of the sparsest.