4 ms·

Unexplored by whom though? The Americas are a great example of places that might have made the list in greater numbers if history had gone a little differently

Unexplored by whom though? The Americas are a great example of places that might have made the list in greater numbers if history had gone a little differently, but those settlements were wiped out except for a handful of prominent ones. Then suddenly in the 1500s you get a lot of new Spanish settlements making the list. It doesn't qualify as continuously inhabited, but that doesn't make it unexplored. In many cases I'm sure one can consider it more or less a coincidence that one town happened to be conquered while inhabited and another might've had the whole town die of smallpox or whatever.

lisper 7y ago
I probably should have used a different word. What I meant was that the last 200 years or so is the first time in history that human civilization has extended across the entire planet simultaneously.
- bromuro 7y ago
  In Australia 200 years ago that “human civilization” perpetuated genocides against the “uncivilized” humans there. Not sure if are the words used the problem here... sure this is a sensitive topic.
  - lisper 7y ago
    I didn't intend to imply any kind of value judgement on whether or not the spread of "civilization" (or whatever you want to call the present state of affairs) is good or bad.
- 205guy 7y ago
  I still think this is unfairly discounting the native populations, because this thread is talking about Australia and Polynesia. Australia had been settled for 10s of thousands of years, and Polynesia for thousands of years, perhaps down to 1000 for the last islands to be settled. I do think the concept of "continuously inhabited city" is interesting, but ultimately distorting in several ways, especially in the Americas. Adding the loaded word "civilization" just further muddies the waters. However, if you consider that Antarctica was finally sighted in 1820, your figure of 200 years is very accurate. That said, I think it is interesting that there are probably islands on which no human has ever set foot. At least I think that's the case, I don't have proof. Large swaths of ice as well, but islands are easier to think about.

lisper 7y ago

I probably should have used a different word. What I meant was that the last 200 years or so is the first time in history that human civilization has extended across the entire planet simultaneously.

bromuro 7y ago
In Australia 200 years ago that “human civilization” perpetuated genocides against the “uncivilized” humans there. Not sure if are the words used the problem here... sure this is a sensitive topic.
- lisper 7y ago
  I didn't intend to imply any kind of value judgement on whether or not the spread of "civilization" (or whatever you want to call the present state of affairs) is good or bad.
205guy 7y ago
I still think this is unfairly discounting the native populations, because this thread is talking about Australia and Polynesia. Australia had been settled for 10s of thousands of years, and Polynesia for thousands of years, perhaps down to 1000 for the last islands to be settled. I do think the concept of "continuously inhabited city" is interesting, but ultimately distorting in several ways, especially in the Americas. Adding the loaded word "civilization" just further muddies the waters. However, if you consider that Antarctica was finally sighted in 1820, your figure of 200 years is very accurate. That said, I think it is interesting that there are probably islands on which no human has ever set foot. At least I think that's the case, I don't have proof. Large swaths of ice as well, but islands are easier to think about.