NationStates Jolt Archive

There is no reason to have continents. They blend completely unrelated things, have ambiguous boundaries(Urals), and don't really have any meaning. Regions should be used instead of continents.

Inspired by that "Turkey in Europe?" thread.

This post has been brought to you by Fig Newtons (http://www.fignewtons.com).

Nope, they can still be useful

dont abolish them, but if you really need a new system, create one, and make it an alternative

What do we need them for? They are useless and only cause trouble, such as in the Turkey debate.

I suggested regions...

Do you think this would generate less debate? If anything, it would further vex matters. Where does a region begin and end? What constitutes a region? And so on.

the only illogical continent is europe

if we would give up on the idea that it is seperate from asia, the rest all make very good sense.

Well, geography is geography, you can't really do much about that. And even if you do use the word region instead of continent, it pretty much has the same meaning. Asian region, Asian continent. South American region, South American continent. Etc. etc.

Its just geography, why make such a big deal about it? Leave the continents alone.

No, but revised. Europe is a part of Asia.

No, but revised. Europe is a part of Asia.

Mmm... but how can it be? They're two entirely separate geographic locations.

I think politically the concept is unhelpful. But geographically and geologically it will remain, no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.

Mmm... but how can it be? They're two entirely separate geographic locations.

Look at a map. Where does Europe stop and Asia begin exactly? I would say the Urals but others have said nearer/further.

I just call it all Earth.

The problem with your plan is that continents - unlike countries, nations, cultures and peoples - ACTUALLY EXIST as scientific, geographic things,

The problem is that the subdivision available between world, continent, nation, region, and city is an important part of seeing cultural and global trends for scholars. That, more than Continental Unions, or Free Trade Agreements, is why continents are important.

the only illogical continent is europe

That depends upon whether you consider North America and South America to be different continents or not: one of the interesting things around the world is that there are a variety of different ways of dividing the globe into continents - you can chose anything between seven and three.

The problem with your plan is that continents - unlike countries, nations, cultures and peoples - ACTUALLY EXIST as scientific, geographic things,

Hokay, how many continents actually are there then?

Look at a map. Where does Europe stop and Asia begin exactly? I would say the Urals but others have said nearer/further.

Meh: where does Eurasia stop and Africa start?

Meh: where does Eurasia stop and Africa start?

I would have thought that was obvious. The red sea, Somalia and Madagasca would be Africa's furhtest eastern edge, Manturia and Senegal East, Tunsia to the North and South Africa to the...well south.

Hokay, how many continents actually are there then?

Eurasia
South America
North America
Oceianaia
Africa
Antartica

I'd say that covers it.

I would have thought that was obvious. The red sea, Somalia and Madagasca would be Africa's furhtest eastern edge, Manturia and Senegal East, Tunsia to the North and South Africa to the...well south.

So why ignore the fact that it is connected by land between Egypt and Jordan? The artificially produced Suez canel excepted it is theoretically possible to walk from South Africa to China without crossing salt water - so why split Africa from Eurasia (if youa re going to collate Europe and Asia in the first place)?

Eurasia
South America
North America
Oceianaia
Africa
Antartica

I'd say that covers it.

Possibly, but without a pre-agreed working definition of a continent this is as valid as claiming that there are only three (Americas, Africa-Eurasia and Antarctica).

That depends upon whether you consider North America and South America to be different continents or not: one of the interesting things around the world is that there are a variety of different ways of dividing the globe into continents - you can chose anything between seven and three.

Actually, if you really want to divide it into continental plates, it might look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg/682px-Plates_tect2_en.svg.png
Arabia, The Phillippines, the Caribbean, India, would all be their own continents. On the other hand, much of eastern Siberia and northern Japan would be incorporated into North America, and part of southern California would join Fiji and Hawaii in the Pacific Plate. New Zealand would be split between Antarctica and Australia. In the end, you could have about 11 different populated continental regions.

Seriously, though,classifying the world by region would be impossible to effect.

Possibly, but without a pre-agreed working definition of a continent this is as valid as claiming that there are only three (Americas, Africa-Eurasia and Antarctica).
Where Australia belongs to in this definiton?

Behold, the tectonic plates.

http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/images/gal_tectonic%20plates.jpg

Where Australia belongs to in this definiton?

I believe it is considered to be part of Africa-Eurasia under this model.

Actually, if you really want to divide it into continental plates, it might look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg/682px-Plates_tect2_en.svg.png


Yeah, but as you know the concept of continent long predates any scientific notion of plate techtonics, and so such a retroactive definition seems to fly in the face of historical and popular culture.

Where Australia belongs to in this definiton?
It's its own seperate continent. But he is right as far as the other stuff. The only Continients are the Americas, Eurasia-Africa, Antarctica, and Australia-New Zealand.

What do we need them for? They are useless and only cause trouble, such as in the Turkey debate.

I suggested regions...

Is that really trouble? What's the point? It's an abstract concept, and I don't hink anyone is particularly upset about it, with the possible exception of you.

fudge it lets unite under one world goverment, and funnel all funds to to uplifting people out of poverty and diseases... :rolleyes: yea yea I know won't happen any time soon.

That depends upon whether you consider North America and South America to be different continents or not: one of the interesting things around the world is that there are a variety of different ways of dividing the globe into continents - you can chose anything between seven and three.
while the exact boundary line is a political decision, its easy to see that there are 2 land masses, north america and south america connected by a fairly slim isthmus

same with africa being connected to asia

europe on the other hand is an obvious extension of asia. if mountains are to be considered boundaries, then south asia should be a seperate continent also. europe is considered a seperate continent for what are obviously political/racial reasons. europeans thought up the idea, they decided that they didnt want to be associated with asia so they made up a silly continental division at the urals.

i would count australia as its own continent and leave the various ocean islands of the world as being "continentless" as they are NOT connected to the main land masses.

I've been trying not to respond to many threads, and doing rather poorly.
This is an issue that really bugs me though.

I agree that we ought to at least re-arrange them. Europe ceased to exist as a geologically distinct entity hundreds of millions of years ago.

South Asia and much of the Mid-east (except Turkey and northern Iran), are on seperate techtonic plates. As is Central Americam, and bits of other land not classified as continents here and there.

Eurasia has a funnyshape if you go by the parts of the plate above water, and it makes sense to divide it into Europe (At the Urals and Zagros), Asia (at the Himalyas and Hindu Kush), and Southeast Asia (south of China, east of Assam). This is still arbitrary though, plus Iran and Afghanistan have to go wholly into one or the other, (who decides) and parts of Burma and the South Asian countries would be on the wrong continent for the plate.

And then Mexico is generally conted as central America but is almost wholly on the North American plate.

And while Africa's entirely on one plate, for geographical and cultural purposes it's usually divided into multiple regions.

And that's a mess.

So I'd say do it by mostly by techtonics and throw Iran into the Middle East and Afghanistan into South Asia, and divide Eurasia into Europe, Siberian, and Tukestan on one hand, and the rest on the other.

europe on the other hand is an obvious extension of asia. if mountains are to be considered boundaries, then south asia should be a seperate continent also.


By 'south asia' you mean the subcontinent, yes?

Where Australia belongs to in this definiton?


well, there's some debate as to weither Australia is the worlds smallest continent, or it's largest island.

in the "three continants" model, it would be considered an island. certainly not part of asia, it's seperated by naturaly occuring saltwater, which is the deffinition of a continental boundry in that model, i belive.

Behold, the tectonic plates.

http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/images/gal_tectonic%20plates.jpg

wow, someone randomly shit volcanos all over Africa.

the only illogical continent is europe

if we would give up on the idea that it is seperate from asia, the rest all make very good sense.

So it shall be written so it shall be done.

Behold, the tectonic plates.

http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/images/gal_tectonic%20plates.jpg

That's a dated model.

Below is the current one, by the latest technology.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg/682px-Plates_tect2_en.svg.png

And Africa is covered with Volcanoes because East Africa is set to split off into its own continent in a few million years' time.

And Africa is covered with Volcanoes because East Africa is set to split off into its own continent in a few million years' time.

I know, the Great Rift Valley and all, but on that other map, they appear to be just randomly scattered around.

I say we wait until New Pangea forms to have this discussion.