3 ms·

If you go far enough back, South America and Africa were 1 continent. Go even further and, at several times, there was only 1 continent on Earth. Go even furthe

If you go far enough back, South America and Africa were 1 continent. Go even further and, at several times, there was only 1 continent on Earth. Go even further back and there were no continents. So maybe we should just to away with the notion of having continents in the first place.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
That would be the ad absurdium argument :-). But the EEZ[1] argument is the one that is in play here. Generally the 'oceans' are international water, and what is under them is not claimed by any country. There are economic and strategic assets here, whether it is oil or methane clathrates, fisheries, or places to establish forward operating bases, these things are 'easy' to claim in your 'own' territory and 'hard' to claim in international waters. Step 1, redefine them to not be international waters. See the South China Sea and now Zealandia ... [1] Extended Economic Zone
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Ad absurdium arguments are my favorite :) Totally understand the implications of EEZ, but at some point you have to draw the line else the line will become increasingly more arbitrary as countries try to fuzz the boundaries of what a continent is and is not. Why does any country get to lay claim on a chunk of seafloor that has been uninhabitable for land animals far longer than humans have been around as a species?
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    Why does any country get to lay claim on a chunk of seafloor that has been uninhabitable for land animals far longer than humans have been around as a species? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... It's true this is unfair to marine animals, but that's really their fault for not attending the meetings when the treaty was signed.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

That would be the ad absurdium argument :-). But the EEZ[1] argument is the one that is in play here. Generally the 'oceans' are international water, and what is under them is not claimed by any country. There are economic and strategic assets here, whether it is oil or methane clathrates, fisheries, or places to establish forward operating bases, these things are 'easy' to claim in your 'own' territory and 'hard' to claim in international waters. Step 1, redefine them to not be international waters. See the South China Sea and now Zealandia ... [1] Extended Economic Zone

craftyguy 9y ago
Ad absurdium arguments are my favorite :) Totally understand the implications of EEZ, but at some point you have to draw the line else the line will become increasingly more arbitrary as countries try to fuzz the boundaries of what a continent is and is not. Why does any country get to lay claim on a chunk of seafloor that has been uninhabitable for land animals far longer than humans have been around as a species?
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  Why does any country get to lay claim on a chunk of seafloor that has been uninhabitable for land animals far longer than humans have been around as a species? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... It's true this is unfair to marine animals, but that's really their fault for not attending the meetings when the treaty was signed.