I don’t believe in continents. I’m incontinent.
Europe being on a different continent than Asia always seemed like bullshit. I can forgive the isthmuses, but Eurasia feels like it’s a thing to me.
But then you run into the issue that the very concept of continent was invented to differentiate Europe and Asia (and Africa).
Eh, words change and sometimes terms outlive their etymology or grow beyond it. We “hang up the phone” but no phone these days is actually hung up. 🤷
That’s literally the same thing, we kept the expression even when we know it isn’t accurate any more, because we still have the need to express the original meaning.
If anything, we should split Asia in more subcontinents.
Informally, we kinda do. Middle East, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia.
Yeah, fair enough.
Still seems like, with the way that continent is typically defined, Eurasia should be the continent with subcontients of Europe, Asia, India, and the Middle East.
The difference between Europe and Asia should also apply to Asia and India.
How is India different from Pakistan?
I think both pakistan and India are the subcontinent of India. Wherever the mountains are is the edge of it.
The Romans divided the world into three equal landmasses before they understood how it was actually laid out and it stuck.
Definitely not the Romans. It may have stuck because of them, but the Greeks divided the world that way long before Rome left Italy.
Same, if they’re different continents then Africa is also more than one continent
Well by that logic then Europe ,Asia and Africa are all one continent. Just because someone dug a fucking suez ditch does not make them any less connected.
Since continent doesn’t have a strict definition, in my book, giving the isthmus of suez (and the isthmus of panama) a pass makes sense. Both of those were historically very difficult to traverse and not viable sustained trade routes compared to just sailing around them. Hell, there’s still not a road that links North and South America through the Darian Gap, which is wild to me considering what seems like should be a vital connection point bottleneck.
I understand “continent” a mercurial word and so people can define Europe and Asia as being different contients, but it does seem like it’s the only continental division that doesn’t make logical sense to me.
Well I guess. But there is a bridge across the suez and by a similar kind of logic you could split europe into 2 ‘continets’ because of the donau-main kanal. Same thing as the panama one as far as I am concerned.
I think of it more as if you were to give a pen to an alien child and said “draw a circle around the main landmasses on this planet” they would probably logically draw circles around North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. They wouldn’t look at the Ural Mountains or any sort of canal systems, just “these are the main blobs on this world map.”
But that’s just the way I think of continents. 🤷♂️
I guess. But in my mind still main landmass would encompass anything connected to it. So if you were to look at the earth before we built all those canals there would be like 4 continents. I don’t personally think small things like a canal would be enough to actually separate 1 continent into 2. It would have to be quite a bit of distance for that to make sense. Like if the entire canal was the width and depth of the gulf of suez then yes, we have made a new continent.
Sometimes things are defined by history, inertia, earlier understandings. There are six continents, because there’s always been six and it would be overly pedantic to find objective criteria with today’s understanding …… unless you want another Pluto controversy.
imo europe is a colonialist excuse, not a continent
In the great words of Atlas Pro after going into excruciating detail on why no answer is more correct He said:
So gow many continents are there?
“Obviously six”
No further clarification was given.
Pluto was always a continent!!!
The continents are white and gold, Yanny, and Bouba.
There’s one continent, it’s called the crust of the Earth. There’s some water on top of it in some places.
This comment has been flagged as DEI /s
Continental crusts are an observable and measurable thing
They contain higher concentrations of aluminum whereas you find higher concentrations of magnesium outside of those crusts.
They are geological features and should be categorized accordingly. Eurasia makes way more sense than Europe being its own special thing… Except Europe, historically, likes to pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist in their concepts and as such always considers itself special
Oceanic crusts are also much denser than continental crusts, and obviously not as thick. When they collide the oceanic crusts subduct back into the mantle due to being denser.
Seems like stamp collecting to me
The oceans are just a big lake.
The big salty lake I call it.
Stop doing maps. Years of cartography and this is what they want you believe? /s -ish.
Cartography always has a hidden set of assumptions and goals and because political geography as infrastructure isn’t exactly a consensus topic either, shenanigans like this are pretty much expectable in geography.
There’s between 3 and 500. Since it’s statistically unlikely that the correct number would be at either extreme, the most likely correct number of continents would be somewhere around 250, with a margin of error of approximately 245.
Look at the big brain on Brett!
Afroeurasiastraliameritarctica
Duck
Why?
Pangea
Of course there isn’t. There are 10 billion people on earth. I even disagree with myself on the matter.
PS: TIL too.
Closer to 8 billion
There was a study last year saying that 8 billion could be super underestimating the world population.
https://human-settlement.emergency.copernicus.eu/ruralPopDisclaimer.php
False. Well, it’s true there was that one study but it wasn’t accurate.
Just wait a few years. ;)
8.3 billion people. But who’s counting?
why does Australia get one they don’t even do it right
I was taught it was Australasia.
Oceania or bust
“Australia and Oceania” here, in the first of two models I’ll elaborate on.
We were taught two different models
First one translates basically as “divisions of the world”
- Europe
- Asia
- Africa
- Antarctica
- Australia and Oceania
- Americas
The other one translates more directly as “continents”
- Eurasia
- Africa
- Antarctica
- Australia
- North America
- South America
But those are of course not the only models, just the ones taught in school where I’m from.
Honestly, the biggest two problems I’ve encountered are:
- “Oceania” is not a continent. It’s like seven smaller continental plates. Zealandia is more of a continent than Europe is. Similarly, Greenland is also more of a continent than Europe is.
- if you’re going to count Europe, you also have to count India, and in reality, we should probably just talk about cratons and plates, not “continents”.
Okay, new scheme: Every continental shield is a continent. Everything not on one is terra incognita. Continental platforms are just delusional sea floor.
Certainly that classification won’t lead to any confusion.
You seem to be assuming that continents are defined based on plate tectonics? Which they definitely aren’t since they predate our understanding of plate tectonics by centuries.
Yes it’s a flawed system. In particular it’s Europe-centric and kind of breaks down with Asia’s borders with Europe and Oceania being relatively arbitrary. But trying to retroactively make it fit some kind of “objective” definition is IMO the wrong approach. We don’t need the 5-ish continents to be “fixed” because their definition is unserious and of little consequence. As long as we’re cognizant we can just move on with our lives and use more precise descriptors (e.g. “The Middle East”) when needed.
No, you misunderstand: I am claiming that the only valid way to define continents is using the best available scientific understanding at the time. The idea of “continents” as defined by laypeople is bullshit because it does not conform with consistently-defined parameters.
There is a geological definition of a continent, which is, effectively, “a portion of a tectonic plate which is thicker and less-mafic than oceanic crust, formed by volcanism and accretion.” This definition has utility.
To pretend that definitions can’t change is ridiculously prescriptivist. It’s just a failure of the educational systems available that few learn a better definition than “whatever old dead white guys said was a continent”. Are you suggesting that we should have come up with a new name besides “element” when early chemists started realising that “fire”, “air”, “earth”, “water”, “wood” and “metal” were not, in fact, the most basic building blocks of reality? Old outdated terms can and should be applied to new classifications which better comport with our best understanding of reality.
When plate tectonics was developed, the geological community quickly accepted, for instance, that Europe was no longer its own continent, but also that New Zealand was. I am suggesting that anyone claiming there are six or seven continents is precisely like someone claiming there are nine planets, or four elements. It’s not only not based off of the best available scientific classifications, it’s also so reductivist as to be literally useless. Anyone who doesn’t know that fire is not an element needs to retake secondary chemistry, because their understanding of the world is flawed at a basic level. Anyone who thinks there are five, six or seven continents needs to be introduced to better, more up-to-date definitions.
Europe isn’t a continent, it’s a political entity. A continent is geographic. EurAsia is a continent.
Lol no. The european union is the political entity. Europe is a continent. Asia is a continent. If you want to talk about both of them together you can say eurasia but they are not one continent.
What delineates Europe from Asia that shouldn’t also delineate India from Asia?
Not trying to be argumentative, curious. I’ve always heard of India as a subcontinent, and when explained why it seems like Europe fits the same description.
Large mountain ranges (the Urals for Europe-Asia and the Himalayas for India-rest-of-Asia).
They are one continuous landmass. A continent is one continuous landmass. You can’t split a single landmass and call it two separate continents.
So is North and South America. Is that also one continent?
There are going to be little isthmuses connecting landmasses, but that doesn’t make them combined. Africa is technically connected to both Europe and Asia, but nobody is suggesting that they be combined with Europe and Asia. Europe and Asia are literally the same landmass, with just a border between them.
Even the Middle East probably has a better claim on being a Continent than Europe.
Besides, the Panama Canal essentially makes North And South America separated by water.
Aren’t Europe and Asia on the same techtonic plate? Isn’t that also the reason India is considered a subcontinent because it is on a different techtonic plate?
Iceland is between two tectonic plates, and that rule would separate the Somali plate from the rest of Africa, make the Caribbean its own continent, etc
Don’t forget zealandia being its own continent
North and South America are joined by a thin strip of land that serves as the continent border. Africa and Eurasia are joined by a thin strip that serves as a continent barrier. Europe and Asia have no natural border between them.
One of my first arguments on here was over what constitutes a continent. I feel vindicated.
It’s wild how much “basic science” is just some pale bro’s wacky idea.
