5 ms·

> But my thoughts about Europe definitely changed after seeing the other projection. That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Did you

> But my thoughts about Europe definitely changed after seeing the other projection. That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Do you now think that Indonesia is more important because of its size? I would expect that revelations about population would be more worldview adjusting (Nigeria and Indonesia are so huge).

bluepod4 3y ago
You have a fixed and narrow definition of what important means. Importance should change depending on context. Sure, you are definitely allowed to say that a certain metric (i.e. population size or density) has more practical applications and provides better signal for “blah blah”. But I’m not discussing “blah blah”.
- prepend 3y ago
  I’m curious why you think my definition of important is fixed and narrow. I didn’t define it and I agree that importance is a factor of context. I commented that it was curious that someone would think size is so important that learning the true size of countries would change their world view. In that land mass isn’t usually very important for political or cultural significance (eg, Canada is huge and that doesn’t make it important, Russia is important not because of its size, etc etc).
  - bluepod4 3y ago
    Because you used phrases like “really important” and “more important”. It sounds very juvenile.
IIAOPSW 3y ago
>That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? If it wasn't, why was so much of history spent fighting over it?
- prepend 3y ago
  History was spent fighting over valuable resources, not sheer size. No one fought much over Canada and Siberia and they are huge.
goodbyesf 3y ago
> That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Yes. That and population. Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. > Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Ever wonder why britain, spain, portugal and netherlands expanded their landmass by creating their empires? Ever wonder why britain, spain, portugal and netherlands lost their power and influence when they lost their empires and landmass? > Do you now think that Indonesia is more important because of its size? Yes along with other reasons - population, geographical location, etc.
- prepend 3y ago
  > Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. But this is obviously not true. Just look at the list of top 10 by GDP and check out how many of them are relatively small. I mean you have to have natural resources and can’t be tiny, but it’s not like Germany and Japan are powerful because of their landmass. I think judging countries by their size is a mistake in rationality and people shouldn’t do that. It’s only silly people who look at Greenland on a Mercator map and think that they are powerful based on size.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    > But this is obviously not true. It is obviously true. The five permanent security council members are US, China, Russia, UK and France. US, China and Russia are obviously gigantic. UK is gigantic via its ties to Canada, Australia, NZ. After all the silly monarch of britain is the head of state of all these nations. And France has a gigantic empire still. Go check out their EEZ. > but it’s not like Germany and Japan are powerful because of their landmass. Germany and Japan aren't powerful. Powerful nations aren't occupied by a foreign power. Germany and Japan are extraordinarly weak. Their economic well being is entirely dependent on the generosity of another nation. There is a reason why Germany and Japan tried to expand their territories in ww2. They failed and they have to live with the consequences. > I think judging countries by their size is a mistake in rationality and people shouldn’t do that. Sure. Landmass by itself isn't everything. As I said, you have to factor in population, quality of land, ports, neighbors, etc. > It’s only silly people who look at Greenland on a Mercator map and think that they are powerful based on size. You quoted "the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential." Do you know what populous means? It's silly to quote something and not understand it.

bluepod4 3y ago

You have a fixed and narrow definition of what important means. Importance should change depending on context. Sure, you are definitely allowed to say that a certain metric (i.e. population size or density) has more practical applications and provides better signal for “blah blah”. But I’m not discussing “blah blah”.

prepend 3y ago
I’m curious why you think my definition of important is fixed and narrow. I didn’t define it and I agree that importance is a factor of context. I commented that it was curious that someone would think size is so important that learning the true size of countries would change their world view. In that land mass isn’t usually very important for political or cultural significance (eg, Canada is huge and that doesn’t make it important, Russia is important not because of its size, etc etc).
- bluepod4 3y ago
  Because you used phrases like “really important” and “more important”. It sounds very juvenile.

IIAOPSW 3y ago

>That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? If it wasn't, why was so much of history spent fighting over it?

prepend 3y ago
History was spent fighting over valuable resources, not sheer size. No one fought much over Canada and Siberia and they are huge.

goodbyesf 3y ago

> That’s odd. Did you think land mass was somehow really important? Yes. That and population. Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. > Did you ever check out how small Britain or Spain or Portugal or Netherlands were to the size of their empire. Ever wonder why britain, spain, portugal and netherlands expanded their landmass by creating their empires? Ever wonder why britain, spain, portugal and netherlands lost their power and influence when they lost their empires and landmass? > Do you now think that Indonesia is more important because of its size? Yes along with other reasons - population, geographical location, etc.

prepend 3y ago
> Generally, the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential. But this is obviously not true. Just look at the list of top 10 by GDP and check out how many of them are relatively small. I mean you have to have natural resources and can’t be tiny, but it’s not like Germany and Japan are powerful because of their landmass. I think judging countries by their size is a mistake in rationality and people shouldn’t do that. It’s only silly people who look at Greenland on a Mercator map and think that they are powerful based on size.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > But this is obviously not true. It is obviously true. The five permanent security council members are US, China, Russia, UK and France. US, China and Russia are obviously gigantic. UK is gigantic via its ties to Canada, Australia, NZ. After all the silly monarch of britain is the head of state of all these nations. And France has a gigantic empire still. Go check out their EEZ. > but it’s not like Germany and Japan are powerful because of their landmass. Germany and Japan aren't powerful. Powerful nations aren't occupied by a foreign power. Germany and Japan are extraordinarly weak. Their economic well being is entirely dependent on the generosity of another nation. There is a reason why Germany and Japan tried to expand their territories in ww2. They failed and they have to live with the consequences. > I think judging countries by their size is a mistake in rationality and people shouldn’t do that. Sure. Landmass by itself isn't everything. As I said, you have to factor in population, quality of land, ports, neighbors, etc. > It’s only silly people who look at Greenland on a Mercator map and think that they are powerful based on size. You quoted "the larger and more populous countries tend to be the most powerful and influential." Do you know what populous means? It's silly to quote something and not understand it.