4 ms·

Since we're comparing sizes... Let's do it with continents! 1 Africa = 3.35 Australias = 2.86 Europes = 2.20 Antarcticas = 1.67 South Americas = 1.23 Nor

by beloch 13y ago

Since we're comparing sizes... Let's do it with continents! 1 Africa = 3.35 Australias = 2.86 Europes = 2.20 Antarcticas = 1.67 South Americas = 1.23 North Americas = 0.69 Asia's Now, in term's of population: 1 Africa = 35.10 Australias = 1.38 Europes = 227669.04 Antarcticas = 2.60 South Americas = 1.89 North Americas = 0.25 Asia's

_delirium 13y ago
I wonder if there's a usable ballpark measure for "habitable land"? E.g. you could say that large parts of Siberia are effectively uninhabitable, along with some parts of the Sahara desert and a good portion of Australia, and most/all of Antarctica. Of course habitability isn't really a binary function with a solid definition, but it'd be interesting to get some kind of rough estimate, especially when looking at land area and population in parallel.
- speeder 13y ago
  That is a good question. I think of the huge countries, Brazil is probably the one with less useless land? Brazil harshest environment is the quasi-desert plains in the northeast non-coastal region, it rarely rains there because the coast has lots of hills high enough to block rain (thus the coast is very rainy too), but it is not a complete desert (yet... overuse of land in agriculture is slowly transforming it in a desert). Brazil has no crazy areas of desert, tundra, or other non-fertile areas, the only parts "hard" to live as human are the rainforest (because it is too dense, nothing you cannot fix by making your own clearing) and the marshy area (because to live there you need to figure how to make a floating house or a house that don't flood). US has the Arizona desert, and some snowy mountains, Canada half of it is just ice, Russia too, half of it is ice, China has a huge desert plus the himalaias, and the largest countries in Africa usually are large because they extend the border to the middle of Sahara because of natural resources, it is not really useful land. And Australia has that very dry outback where you cannot have proper farming.
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Navigable rivers is the big problem. Extensive navigable rivers is what made and continues to make Europe and North America such premium pieces of land. Siberia, Brazil, and Africa have all had the problem that moving stuff in and out is super energy intensive.
    - avn2109 13y ago
      This is an interesting point. Can you suggest some reading to find out more about this? eg. what got you thinking along these lines?
      - ximeng 13y ago
        Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs and Steel
  - beloch 13y ago
    How land is utilized has a huge impact. You'd think Brazil's rainforests would be on incredibly fertile land, but the soil actually stinks for agriculture. Brazilian farmers use Swidden (a.k.a. Slash-and-Burn) agriculture. They clear the land and generally only get a few useful growing seasons before the soil is infertile. Then they move on. Land has more uses than agriculture of course. Forestry is huge. The amazon, were it sustainably logged instead of hastily burned, could supply a tremendous amount of lumber. Canada and Russia do have a lot of perma-frost in the far North, but an even larger portion of their uninhabited land is boreal forest. This land is far from useless even if much of it is not suitable for agriculture.
- dimitar 13y ago
  There is the measure of "arable land" which isn't too close, but explains a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country Land in permafrost, desert, mountain or swamp isn't arable and can support by itself a lot less population. This doesn't matter as much at a today when food can be shipped anywhere.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Fair point. In the US, the bulk of population is along the Easter Seaboard, and much of the rest east of the Mississippi. Europe is pretty uniformly populated. Even China is mostly populated along the southeast coastline, with the interior largely empty space. India's population density is rather more uniform, with a surprisingly large (to my mind) portion of the population against the Himalaya. For the US, two ways of providing an equal-population distribution: Re-allocated states by population. Note that this IMO inverts perception, as we view "bigger" with "more", when in fact the largest states have the lowest population densities. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/map-u-s-redrawn-as-50-states-with-equal-population http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/map-u-s-redrawn-as-50-... US population represented by height: http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2011/12/map-of-week-12-12-2011us-population.html http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2011/12/map-of-week-... And a cartogram by state: http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/bright-ideas.php http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/bright-ideas.php Here's global population density by color intensity: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7052 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7052 A global cartogram (equal-area by population). Color coded by surface temperature anomoly: http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TemperatureAnomalyMar2013.jpg http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Te... Ah, what I've been looking for (should have started at Wikipedia): a US cartogram by county, color shaded by 2004 presidential election results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png A number of interesting world maps, including more cartograms: http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/ http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/ http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TheHumanPlanet_bhennig2013.jpg http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Th...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by beloch 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

I wonder if there's a usable ballpark measure for "habitable land"? E.g. you could say that large parts of Siberia are effectively uninhabitable, along with some parts of the Sahara desert and a good portion of Australia, and most/all of Antarctica. Of course habitability isn't really a binary function with a solid definition, but it'd be interesting to get some kind of rough estimate, especially when looking at land area and population in parallel.

speeder 13y ago
That is a good question. I think of the huge countries, Brazil is probably the one with less useless land? Brazil harshest environment is the quasi-desert plains in the northeast non-coastal region, it rarely rains there because the coast has lots of hills high enough to block rain (thus the coast is very rainy too), but it is not a complete desert (yet... overuse of land in agriculture is slowly transforming it in a desert). Brazil has no crazy areas of desert, tundra, or other non-fertile areas, the only parts "hard" to live as human are the rainforest (because it is too dense, nothing you cannot fix by making your own clearing) and the marshy area (because to live there you need to figure how to make a floating house or a house that don't flood). US has the Arizona desert, and some snowy mountains, Canada half of it is just ice, Russia too, half of it is ice, China has a huge desert plus the himalaias, and the largest countries in Africa usually are large because they extend the border to the middle of Sahara because of natural resources, it is not really useful land. And Australia has that very dry outback where you cannot have proper farming.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Navigable rivers is the big problem. Extensive navigable rivers is what made and continues to make Europe and North America such premium pieces of land. Siberia, Brazil, and Africa have all had the problem that moving stuff in and out is super energy intensive.
  - avn2109 13y ago
    This is an interesting point. Can you suggest some reading to find out more about this? eg. what got you thinking along these lines?
    - ximeng 13y ago
      Jared Diamond - Guns, Germs and Steel
- beloch 13y ago
  How land is utilized has a huge impact. You'd think Brazil's rainforests would be on incredibly fertile land, but the soil actually stinks for agriculture. Brazilian farmers use Swidden (a.k.a. Slash-and-Burn) agriculture. They clear the land and generally only get a few useful growing seasons before the soil is infertile. Then they move on. Land has more uses than agriculture of course. Forestry is huge. The amazon, were it sustainably logged instead of hastily burned, could supply a tremendous amount of lumber. Canada and Russia do have a lot of perma-frost in the far North, but an even larger portion of their uninhabited land is boreal forest. This land is far from useless even if much of it is not suitable for agriculture.
dimitar 13y ago
There is the measure of "arable land" which isn't too close, but explains a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country Land in permafrost, desert, mountain or swamp isn't arable and can support by itself a lot less population. This doesn't matter as much at a today when food can be shipped anywhere.
dredmorbius 13y ago
Fair point. In the US, the bulk of population is along the Easter Seaboard, and much of the rest east of the Mississippi. Europe is pretty uniformly populated. Even China is mostly populated along the southeast coastline, with the interior largely empty space. India's population density is rather more uniform, with a surprisingly large (to my mind) portion of the population against the Himalaya. For the US, two ways of providing an equal-population distribution: Re-allocated states by population. Note that this IMO inverts perception, as we view "bigger" with "more", when in fact the largest states have the lowest population densities. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/map-u-s-redrawn-as-50-states-with-equal-population http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/map-u-s-redrawn-as-50-... US population represented by height: http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2011/12/map-of-week-12-12-2011us-population.html http://geographer-at-large.blogspot.com/2011/12/map-of-week-... And a cartogram by state: http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/bright-ideas.php http://www.datavis.ca/gallery/bright-ideas.php Here's global population density by color intensity: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7052 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7052 A global cartogram (equal-area by population). Color coded by surface temperature anomoly: http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TemperatureAnomalyMar2013.jpg http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Te... Ah, what I've been looking for (should have started at Wikipedia): a US cartogram by county, color shaded by 2004 presidential election results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartlinearlarge.png A number of interesting world maps, including more cartograms: http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/ http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/ http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TheHumanPlanet_bhennig2013.jpg http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Th...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]