The same is true of Antarctica. But I think we'll see, maybe in our lifetimes, that population boom is going to drive people to challenge those international 'laws' that say nobody can exploit resources there, and what those laws are worth. It'd be like you and me announcing that we're not going to allow strip mining on Pluto. Won't happen, but that's just because we're not in a situation where anyone wants to yet, and while we can proudly say we've stopped strip mining on Pluto for all eternity, that only works until someone tests it and finds out we can't do crap to stop it. When someone does want to exploit space or Antarctica, when the money is right, they're not gonna let the UN or laws get in the way.
It's Catch-22.
First, assume there is a way to exploit some of the resources of outer space. I have seen both technical and economic analysis that shows it can be done in a businesslike way. The one thing that stands in the way is investment. There is no investment of the kind that would be required, so we should ask why this is so. The answer is that no one will invest without getting an interest in the project. That interest would have to be in the form of collateral. A grant, deed, or contract of charter would be such collateral. There can be no other collateral than property rights. But, property rights are impossible under the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty.
It is possibly amusing to those who think about it that by signing the Treaty agreeing that we would not as a country assert national claim to celestial bodies, we asserted at the same time that we in fact have claimed everything in outer space to the limit of the visible universe if not beyond.
There is opposition, of course. I might mention the Eastern interests that have kept the resources of Alaska virtually frozen excepting oil. It is the same interests that forbad settlement of the Colonies beyond the fall line of the Alleghanies. The same interests do not want development of space resources where it might undercut their established business.