2 ms·
> This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense, It's thousands of (square) kilometres of la
by Beldin 3y ago
> This might be true in an absolute sense, but I'm really skeptical that it's true in a meaningful relative sense,
It's thousands of (square) kilometres of land virtually untouched by humans. Even in the skies. I'd wager that other enormous remote areas (Sahara, Amazon, Himalayas, etc) have significantly more human intrusion. Even Antartica, due to its various research stations.
The only other place that I can think of that is equally sizeable and equally untouched is around the Northeastern Passage. Basically, the only parts of the planet that are almost impossible for humans to get to.
So that is quite different from just about every other possible habitat on this rock.
- tialaramex 3y agoI think you might be mistaken about Antarctica. It's a whole continent, 40% larger than Europe, there are bases on its edges, and Amundsen-Scott at the pole, but the rest of the continent is basically empty and unvisited, and the interior is extremely hostile to life, the penguins make it look easier than it is to survive there. So unlike, say, New Zealand, where when humans arrived they brought rats which decimated the wildlife [and then white people brought even better rats which made it even worse] our impact is very limited. In July, mid-winter, there's a skeleton crew for the entire interior. Only the Americans, with too much money and a prime research facility (the only place on Earth that is "dry" land and effectively not spinning) operate a winter base here, the Russians used to have one at a less interesting location but they decided that it's too expensive and of too little value and so they only staff it during the summer now.