Eh, words change and sometimes terms outlive their etymology or grow beyond it. We "hang up the phone" but no phone these days is actually hung up. 🤷
That's literally the same thing, we kept the expression even when we know it isn't accurate any more, because we still have the need to express the original meaning.
If anything, we should split Asia in more subcontinents.
Still seems like, with the way that continent is typically defined, Eurasia should be the continent with subcontients of Europe, Asia, India, and the Middle East.
Well by that logic then Europe ,Asia and Africa are all one continent. Just because someone dug a fucking suez ditch does not make them any less connected.
Since continent doesn't have a strict definition, in my book, giving the isthmus of suez (and the isthmus of panama) a pass makes sense. Both of those were historically very difficult to traverse and not viable sustained trade routes compared to just sailing around them. Hell, there's still not a road that links North and South America through the Darian Gap, which is wild to me considering what seems like should be a vital connection point bottleneck.
I understand "continent" a mercurial word and so people can define Europe and Asia as being different contients, but it does seem like it's the only continental division that doesn't make logical sense to me.
Well I guess. But there is a bridge across the suez and by a similar kind of logic you could split europe into 2 'continets' because of the donau-main kanal. Same thing as the panama one as far as I am concerned.
I think of it more as if you were to give a pen to an alien child and said "draw a circle around the main landmasses on this planet" they would probably logically draw circles around North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. They wouldn't look at the Ural Mountains or any sort of canal systems, just "these are the main blobs on this world map."
But that's just the way I think of continents. 🤷‍♂️
I guess. But in my mind still main landmass would encompass anything connected to it. So if you were to look at the earth before we built all those canals there would be like 4 continents. I don't personally think small things like a canal would be enough to actually separate 1 continent into 2. It would have to be quite a bit of distance for that to make sense. Like if the entire canal was the width and depth of the gulf of suez then yes, we have made a new continent.
Sometimes things are defined by history, inertia, earlier understandings. There are six continents, because there’s always been six and it would be overly pedantic to find objective criteria with today’s understanding …… unless you want another Pluto controversy.
Continental crusts are an observable and measurable thing
They contain higher concentrations of aluminum whereas you find higher concentrations of magnesium outside of those crusts.
They are geological features and should be categorized accordingly. Eurasia makes way more sense than Europe being its own special thing... Except Europe, historically, likes to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist in their concepts and as such always considers itself special
Oceanic crusts are also much denser than continental crusts, and obviously not as thick. When they collide the oceanic crusts subduct back into the mantle due to being denser.
Stop doing maps. Years of cartography and this is what they want you believe? /s -ish.
Cartography always has a hidden set of assumptions and goals and because political geography as infrastructure isn't exactly a consensus topic either, shenanigans like this are pretty much expectable in geography.
Honestly, the biggest two problems I've encountered are:
"Oceania" is not a continent. It's like seven smaller continental plates. Zealandia is more of a continent than Europe is. Similarly, Greenland is also more of a continent than Europe is.
if you're going to count Europe, you also have to count India, and in reality, we should probably just talk about cratons and plates, not "continents".
Okay, new scheme: Every continental shield is a continent. Everything not on one is terra incognita. Continental platforms are just delusional sea floor.
Certainly that classification won't lead to any confusion.
You seem to be assuming that continents are defined based on plate tectonics? Which they definitely aren't since they predate our understanding of plate tectonics by centuries.
Yes it's a flawed system. In particular it's Europe-centric and kind of breaks down with Asia's borders with Europe and Oceania being relatively arbitrary. But trying to retroactively make it fit some kind of "objective" definition is IMO the wrong approach. We don't need the 5-ish continents to be "fixed" because their definition is unserious and of little consequence. As long as we're cognizant we can just move on with our lives and use more precise descriptors (e.g. "The Middle East") when needed.
No, you misunderstand: I am claiming that the only valid way to define continents is using the best available scientific understanding at the time. The idea of "continents" as defined by laypeople is bullshit because it does not conform with consistently-defined parameters.
There is a geological definition of a continent, which is, effectively, "a portion of a tectonic plate which is thicker and less-mafic than oceanic crust, formed by volcanism and accretion." This definition has utility.
To pretend that definitions can't change is ridiculously prescriptivist. It's just a failure of the educational systems available that few learn a better definition than "whatever old dead white guys said was a continent". Are you suggesting that we should have come up with a new name besides "element" when early chemists started realising that "fire", "air", "earth", "water", "wood" and "metal" were not, in fact, the most basic building blocks of reality? Old outdated terms can and should be applied to new classifications which better comport with our best understanding of reality.
When plate tectonics was developed, the geological community quickly accepted, for instance, that Europe was no longer its own continent, but also that New Zealand was. I am suggesting that anyone claiming there are six or seven continents is precisely like someone claiming there are nine planets, or four elements. It's not only not based off of the best available scientific classifications, it's also so reductivist as to be literally useless. Anyone who doesn't know that fire is not an element needs to retake secondary chemistry, because their understanding of the world is flawed at a basic level. Anyone who thinks there are five, six or seven continents needs to be introduced to better, more up-to-date definitions.
There's between 3 and 500. Since it's statistically unlikely that the correct number would be at either extreme, the most likely correct number of continents would be somewhere around 250, with a margin of error of approximately 245.
Moscow is in Europe, as is Petersburg, as are something like 80% of the population. So if you want to be like that and say a country has to be entirely in one continent then Russia is in Europe.
Russia is a transcontiental country. The Ural Mountains are considered the boundry between Europe and Asia thus, Russia is about 75 % in Asia and 25 % in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
A country cannot be in/on two different continents.
False. French Guyana in South America is considered a part of France. Not a territory or whatever, it's in the EU as a part of the country. So yes, Brazil borders the EU, for example, and any number of other hilarious facts.
Clarifying ocean and sea is rather arbitrary. I mean what makes the Indian Ocean different from the pacific ocean, or the north sea, or white sea, different than the atlantic?
Truthfully, I hold that belief simply so I can make Game of Thrones cracks like “Canadians are keeping the white-walkers at bay” or “We the north”. However, as of recently Winter has not come to this side of Canada.
Really? What side are you on then? I'm in the upper midwest US and it's been super cold and snowy this year. Like a cold year in the 90s, or an average year in the 80s, but nothing we've seen in a long time. Except wtith 4 polar inversions because the jet stream is moving south.
Lol no. The european union is the political entity. Europe is a continent. Asia is a continent. If you want to talk about both of them together you can say eurasia but they are not one continent.
What delineates Europe from Asia that shouldn’t also delineate India from Asia?
Not trying to be argumentative, curious. I’ve always heard of India as a subcontinent, and when explained why it seems like Europe fits the same description.
There are going to be little isthmuses connecting landmasses, but that doesn't make them combined. Africa is technically connected to both Europe and Asia, but nobody is suggesting that they be combined with Europe and Asia. Europe and Asia are literally the same landmass, with just a border between them.
Even the Middle East probably has a better claim on being a Continent than Europe.
Besides, the Panama Canal essentially makes North And South America separated by water.
Aren't Europe and Asia on the same techtonic plate? Isn't that also the reason India is considered a subcontinent because it is on a different techtonic plate?
Iceland is between two tectonic plates, and that rule would separate the Somali plate from the rest of Africa, make the Caribbean its own continent, etc
North and South America are joined by a thin strip of land that serves as the continent border. Africa and Eurasia are joined by a thin strip that serves as a continent barrier. Europe and Asia have no natural border between them.
To actually answer your question: yes and no. If Europe is a continent, then India definitely is. Both are only separated from the rest of Eurasia by a collision boundary, and Europe's collision boundary isn't even active anymore, IIRC.
Realistically, if you're counting tectonic separation, then the afar triangle is its own continent, as there's an active divergent triple boundary splitting it off from the rest of Africa. The coast of California is a different continent than the rest of north america, because it's split by a transform boundary due to the subducting remnants of the farallon plate (now the Juan De fuca and cocos plates). New Zealand has been accepted to be its own continent for quite some time, since there's a gigantic slab of continental crust underwater to NZ's Northwest. Even still, the southeastern portion would be counted as separate by this hypothetical "boundaries-only" definition, because the transform boundary which has created the South Island Alps splits the south island. Madagascar is its own continental crust, as is Greenland.
Really, if you want to understand the geological boundaries and origins among the areas of the world, I'd recommend considering all of the following five types of data:
Cratons (the really old chunks of continental crust that have just been floating and moving around, making up the continental cores, for the last 3.5+ billion years
Active Tectonic Boundaries (really useful for understanding why there are mountains, trenches, volcanoes and earthquakes where we observe them)
what you can see on a map, like rivers, mountains, isthmuses, and continental shelves (the only thing that our current definition of "continent" actually cares about)
anomalous hotspot volcanism (currently hypothesised to be caused by mantle plumes)
historical terranes and plates (such as avalonia and the flat-slab subduction of the farallon plate)
If you're really interested in the tectonic boundaries of earth, check out the Concord Consortium's "Seismic Explorer" online tool. Super fun.
So, TL;DR: the idea of a continent is bullshit, and purely cultural, just like our definition of a planet (see minute physics' videos explaining why the moon should be a planet, and the IAU are bad at definitions)
That's why there's always the argument that the country should not be called "America". English speaking countries split North and South America as separate continents, so America the country does not get confused with America the continent. In Spanish (might be regional), it's all one continent, so someone saying that they are from "America" doesnt narrow it down to a country.
I think it's fine to just have different conventions in different languages. If you want country names to be 100% unambiguous in all languages, you basically have to change the name of half of the countries out there. E.g., "Deutschland" could refer to all germanic-speaking countries, but everyone recognizes that it just means Germany.
It's fine enough even all in one language. There's the US state of Georgia and the county of Georgia. And outside the occasional funny misunderstanding, it's usually clear from context.
That’s why there’s always the argument that the country should not be called “America”.
I think, though am not sure, that this comes from the 13 colonies having once been "British America", which was by default what people meant when they talked about "America" in English, which stuck after independence.
E.g., “Deutschland” could refer to all germanic-speaking countries, but everyone recognizes that it just means Germany.
nowadays anyway; before the German Empire was founded, "Deutschland" was usually understood as the entire German-speaking region (what we call "deutschsprachiger Raum" today), and between 1949 and 1990 "Deutschland" could mean the Federal Republic of Germany (usually including West Berlin), or the Federal Republic of Germany plus German Democratic Republic plus Berlin, or Germany in the borders of 1937, or even just East Germany whose constitution initially started "Deutschland ist eine unteilbare demokratische Republik".
I theorize that the Vatican can only control 172 countries at any one time, and have a seat selected for the NWO. As for the other 21 (as found in the UN), they have to be targeted for destruction by the Vatican.
131 Comments
tea@lemmy.today · 96 pts · 152d
Europe being on a different continent than Asia always seemed like bullshit. I can forgive the isthmuses, but Eurasia feels like it's a thing to me.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social · 52 pts · 152d
But then you run into the issue that the very concept of continent was invented to differentiate Europe and Asia (and Africa).
tea@lemmy.today · 15 pts · 152d
Eh, words change and sometimes terms outlive their etymology or grow beyond it. We "hang up the phone" but no phone these days is actually hung up. 🤷
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social · 13 pts · 152d
That's literally the same thing, we kept the expression even when we know it isn't accurate any more, because we still have the need to express the original meaning.
If anything, we should split Asia in more subcontinents.
tea@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 152d
Yeah, fair enough.
Still seems like, with the way that continent is typically defined, Eurasia should be the continent with subcontients of Europe, Asia, India, and the Middle East.
inari@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 151d
Informally, we kinda do. Middle East, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 152d
The difference between Europe and Asia should also apply to Asia and India.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 152d
How is India different from Pakistan?
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 151d
I think both pakistan and India are the subcontinent of India. Wherever the mountains are is the edge of it.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 147d
Pakistanis would fume at your comment lmao
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 147d
Would the pakistanis be subsumed or uplifted by that comment? That's a geology joke.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 147d
I know but they wouldn't like being called part of the Indian subcontinent. Nationalism has ruined South Asia.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social · 10 pts · 152d
Same, if they're different continents then Africa is also more than one continent
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 152d
The Romans divided the world into three equal landmasses before they understood how it was actually laid out and it stuck.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 151d
Definitely not the Romans. It may have stuck because of them, but the Greeks divided the world that way long before Rome left Italy.
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
Well by that logic then Europe ,Asia and Africa are all one continent. Just because someone dug a fucking suez ditch does not make them any less connected.
tea@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 151d
Since continent doesn't have a strict definition, in my book, giving the isthmus of suez (and the isthmus of panama) a pass makes sense. Both of those were historically very difficult to traverse and not viable sustained trade routes compared to just sailing around them. Hell, there's still not a road that links North and South America through the Darian Gap, which is wild to me considering what seems like should be a vital connection point bottleneck.
I understand "continent" a mercurial word and so people can define Europe and Asia as being different contients, but it does seem like it's the only continental division that doesn't make logical sense to me.
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
Well I guess. But there is a bridge across the suez and by a similar kind of logic you could split europe into 2 'continets' because of the donau-main kanal. Same thing as the panama one as far as I am concerned.
tea@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 151d
I think of it more as if you were to give a pen to an alien child and said "draw a circle around the main landmasses on this planet" they would probably logically draw circles around North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. They wouldn't look at the Ural Mountains or any sort of canal systems, just "these are the main blobs on this world map."
But that's just the way I think of continents. 🤷‍♂️
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
I guess. But in my mind still main landmass would encompass anything connected to it. So if you were to look at the earth before we built all those canals there would be like 4 continents. I don't personally think small things like a canal would be enough to actually separate 1 continent into 2. It would have to be quite a bit of distance for that to make sense. Like if the entire canal was the width and depth of the gulf of suez then yes, we have made a new continent.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
Sometimes things are defined by history, inertia, earlier understandings. There are six continents, because there’s always been six and it would be overly pedantic to find objective criteria with today’s understanding …… unless you want another Pluto controversy.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 38 pts · 152d
There's one continent, it's called the crust of the Earth. There's some water on top of it in some places.
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 152d
This comment has been flagged as DEI /s
Jarix@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 152d
Continental crusts are an observable and measurable thing
They contain higher concentrations of aluminum whereas you find higher concentrations of magnesium outside of those crusts.
They are geological features and should be categorized accordingly. Eurasia makes way more sense than Europe being its own special thing... Except Europe, historically, likes to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist in their concepts and as such always considers itself special
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 151d
Oceanic crusts are also much denser than continental crusts, and obviously not as thick. When they collide the oceanic crusts subduct back into the mantle due to being denser.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 152d
Seems like stamp collecting to me
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 152d
The oceans are just a big lake.
thorhop@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 151d
The big salty lake I call it.
5715@feddit.org · 37 pts · 152d
Stop doing maps. Years of cartography and this is what they want you believe? /s -ish.
Cartography always has a hidden set of assumptions and goals and because political geography as infrastructure isn't exactly a consensus topic either, shenanigans like this are pretty much expectable in geography.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 36 pts · 152d
Afroeurasiastraliameritarctica
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 28 pts · 152d
usernameusername@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
Duck
percent@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 151d
Why?
OpenStars@piefed.social · 9 pts · 152d
Pangea
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 31 pts · 152d
Pluto was always a continent!!!!
Agent641@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
The continents are white and gold, Yanny, and Bouba.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 152d
Honestly, the biggest two problems I've encountered are:
Jesus_666@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 152d
Okay, new scheme: Every continental shield is a continent. Everything not on one is terra incognita. Continental platforms are just delusional sea floor.
Certainly that classification won't lead to any confusion.
azertyfun@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 151d
You seem to be assuming that continents are defined based on plate tectonics? Which they definitely aren't since they predate our understanding of plate tectonics by centuries.
Yes it's a flawed system. In particular it's Europe-centric and kind of breaks down with Asia's borders with Europe and Oceania being relatively arbitrary. But trying to retroactively make it fit some kind of "objective" definition is IMO the wrong approach. We don't need the 5-ish continents to be "fixed" because their definition is unserious and of little consequence. As long as we're cognizant we can just move on with our lives and use more precise descriptors (e.g. "The Middle East") when needed.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
No, you misunderstand: I am claiming that the only valid way to define continents is using the best available scientific understanding at the time. The idea of "continents" as defined by laypeople is bullshit because it does not conform with consistently-defined parameters.
There is a geological definition of a continent, which is, effectively, "a portion of a tectonic plate which is thicker and less-mafic than oceanic crust, formed by volcanism and accretion." This definition has utility.
To pretend that definitions can't change is ridiculously prescriptivist. It's just a failure of the educational systems available that few learn a better definition than "whatever old dead white guys said was a continent". Are you suggesting that we should have come up with a new name besides "element" when early chemists started realising that "fire", "air", "earth", "water", "wood" and "metal" were not, in fact, the most basic building blocks of reality? Old outdated terms can and should be applied to new classifications which better comport with our best understanding of reality.
When plate tectonics was developed, the geological community quickly accepted, for instance, that Europe was no longer its own continent, but also that New Zealand was. I am suggesting that anyone claiming there are six or seven continents is precisely like someone claiming there are nine planets, or four elements. It's not only not based off of the best available scientific classifications, it's also so reductivist as to be literally useless. Anyone who doesn't know that fire is not an element needs to retake secondary chemistry, because their understanding of the world is flawed at a basic level. Anyone who thinks there are five, six or seven continents needs to be introduced to better, more up-to-date definitions.
Agent641@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 151d
I don't believe in continents. I'm incontinent.
probable_possum@leminal.space · 17 pts · 152d
Of course there isn't. There are 10 billion people on earth. I even disagree with myself on the matter.
PS: TIL too.
MonkRome@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 152d
Closer to 8 billion
DeepSeaString@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 152d
There was a study last year saying that 8 billion could be super underestimating the world population.Â
Soggy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 151d
https://human-settlement.emergency.copernicus.eu/ruralPopDisclaimer.php
False. Well, it's true there was that one study but it wasn't accurate.
probable_possum@leminal.space · 2 pts · 152d
Just wait a few years. ;)
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 151d
8.3 billion people. But who's counting?
Etterra@discuss.online · 11 pts · 151d
There's between 3 and 500. Since it's statistically unlikely that the correct number would be at either extreme, the most likely correct number of continents would be somewhere around 250, with a margin of error of approximately 245.
BigBrainBrett2517@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
Look at the big brain on Brett!
stupidcasey@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 151d
In the great words of Atlas Pro after going into excruciating detail on why no answer is more correct He said:
So gow many continents are there?
"Obviously six"
No further clarification was given.
Tiger_Man_@szmer.info · 9 pts · 151d
imo europe is a colonialist excuse, not a continent
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 152d
mech@feddit.org · 13 pts · 152d
80% of all Russians live in Europe.
Jarix@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 152d
50% of Canadians live below the 49th parallel is very similar in most reapects
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 152d
Well, it's in Asia and Europe. Big country. If Siberia alone was a country, it would still be the biggest country in the world.
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 152d
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 152d
Says who?
hitmyspot@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 152d
Heck Australia is it's own continent and also claims part of Antarctica as territory.
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · -14 pts · 152d
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 152d
Seriously? I thought you would at least be able to come up with a funny explanation to support your nonsensical statement.
So if France conquered all of Africa? Africa wouldn't be a continent anymore? Would we just continuously move the continental border?
If the US conquered Australia, Australia would become part of North America?
How about you slow down and think about this one for a few minutes.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 152d
Probably not, but there are homes in two different countries.
Klear@quokk.au · 5 pts · 152d
Yeah, I've stood in two different countries at the same time before. Haven't you?
Womble@piefed.world · 2 pts · 152d
Moscow is in Europe, as is Petersburg, as are something like 80% of the population. So if you want to be like that and say a country has to be entirely in one continent then Russia is in Europe.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 152d
Russia is a transcontiental country. The Ural Mountains are considered the boundry between Europe and Asia thus, Russia is about 75 % in Asia and 25 % in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 152d
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 152d
Also Turkey is an example. It's in Asia and Europe
greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 152d
Khazakhstan, Egypt
daychilde@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 152d
False. French Guyana in South America is considered a part of France. Not a territory or whatever, it's in the EU as a part of the country. So yes, Brazil borders the EU, for example, and any number of other hilarious facts.
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 152d
This man today has learned that transcontinental countries exist. And yes I fap to My Little Pony
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
Clarifying ocean and sea is rather arbitrary. I mean what makes the Indian Ocean different from the pacific ocean, or the north sea, or white sea, different than the atlantic?
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
Inland seas sure. But I mentioned a couple of seas that are really part of the ocean. The North Sea, and White sea for instance.
But also what makes the Indian Ocean different from the pacific ocean? It's arbitrary.
LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
ohshit604@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 152d
I always assumed North America was Canada, America was the USA/Mexico and South America was Brazil/Venezuela.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 152d
If you accept the 7 continent model, there are 23 countries in North America.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 152d
Makes sense. You are American too, I take it?
ohshit604@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 152d
as Canadian as they come.
Truthfully, I hold that belief simply so I can make Game of Thrones cracks like “Canadians are keeping the white-walkers at bay” or “We the north”. However, as of recently Winter has not come to this side of Canada.
teyrnon@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 151d
Really? What side are you on then? I'm in the upper midwest US and it's been super cold and snowy this year. Like a cold year in the 90s, or an average year in the 80s, but nothing we've seen in a long time. Except wtith 4 polar inversions because the jet stream is moving south.
Soggy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 151d
The Pacific Northwest was very mild all winter so I'd bet BC.
ohshit604@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
Bingo, we coined the name Raincouver for a reason.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 151d
Do you mean American as in I'm on the continent of America, or American as in I live in the United States? I could only answer yes to one of those.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 151d
As product of American education system, ain't nobody got no time for none of your riddles.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 151d
Europe isn't a continent, it's a political entity. A continent is geographic. EurAsia is a continent.
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 151d
Lol no. The european union is the political entity. Europe is a continent. Asia is a continent. If you want to talk about both of them together you can say eurasia but they are not one continent.
invertedspear@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 151d
What delineates Europe from Asia that shouldn’t also delineate India from Asia?
Not trying to be argumentative, curious. I’ve always heard of India as a subcontinent, and when explained why it seems like Europe fits the same description.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 2 pts · 151d
Large mountain ranges (the Urals for Europe-Asia and the Himalayas for India-rest-of-Asia).
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 151d
They are one continuous landmass. A continent is one continuous landmass. You can't split a single landmass and call it two separate continents.
Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org · 1 pts · 151d
So is North and South America. Is that also one continent?
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 151d
There are going to be little isthmuses connecting landmasses, but that doesn't make them combined. Africa is technically connected to both Europe and Asia, but nobody is suggesting that they be combined with Europe and Asia. Europe and Asia are literally the same landmass, with just a border between them.
Even the Middle East probably has a better claim on being a Continent than Europe.
Besides, the Panama Canal essentially makes North And South America separated by water.
fenrasulfr@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 151d
Aren't Europe and Asia on the same techtonic plate? Isn't that also the reason India is considered a subcontinent because it is on a different techtonic plate?
mrlemmyhimself@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 151d
Iceland is between two tectonic plates, and that rule would separate the Somali plate from the rest of Africa, make the Caribbean its own continent, etc
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
Don’t forget zealandia being its own continent
homura1650@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 151d
North and South America are joined by a thin strip of land that serves as the continent border. Africa and Eurasia are joined by a thin strip that serves as a continent barrier. Europe and Asia have no natural border between them.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 6 pts · 152d
Isn't it tectonic separation? Like the plates? 🤔
daychilde@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 152d
Yes. Except for the exceptions, which are the exceptions.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 152d
To actually answer your question: yes and no. If Europe is a continent, then India definitely is. Both are only separated from the rest of Eurasia by a collision boundary, and Europe's collision boundary isn't even active anymore, IIRC.
Realistically, if you're counting tectonic separation, then the afar triangle is its own continent, as there's an active divergent triple boundary splitting it off from the rest of Africa. The coast of California is a different continent than the rest of north america, because it's split by a transform boundary due to the subducting remnants of the farallon plate (now the Juan De fuca and cocos plates). New Zealand has been accepted to be its own continent for quite some time, since there's a gigantic slab of continental crust underwater to NZ's Northwest. Even still, the southeastern portion would be counted as separate by this hypothetical "boundaries-only" definition, because the transform boundary which has created the South Island Alps splits the south island. Madagascar is its own continental crust, as is Greenland.
Really, if you want to understand the geological boundaries and origins among the areas of the world, I'd recommend considering all of the following five types of data:
If you're really interested in the tectonic boundaries of earth, check out the Concord Consortium's "Seismic Explorer" online tool. Super fun.
So, TL;DR: the idea of a continent is bullshit, and purely cultural, just like our definition of a planet (see minute physics' videos explaining why the moon should be a planet, and the IAU are bad at definitions)
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 151d
why does Australia get one they don't even do it right
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 151d
I was taught it was Australasia.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 151d
"Australia and Oceania" here, in the first of two models I'll elaborate on.
We were taught two different models
First one translates basically as "divisions of the world"
The other one translates more directly as "continents"
But those are of course not the only models, just the ones taught in school where I'm from.
czl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 149d
Oceania or bust
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 151d
It's wild how much "basic science" is just some pale bro's wacky idea.
evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 152d
That's why there's always the argument that the country should not be called "America". English speaking countries split North and South America as separate continents, so America the country does not get confused with America the continent. In Spanish (might be regional), it's all one continent, so someone saying that they are from "America" doesnt narrow it down to a country.
I think it's fine to just have different conventions in different languages. If you want country names to be 100% unambiguous in all languages, you basically have to change the name of half of the countries out there. E.g., "Deutschland" could refer to all germanic-speaking countries, but everyone recognizes that it just means Germany.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 152d
It's fine enough even all in one language. There's the US state of Georgia and the county of Georgia. And outside the occasional funny misunderstanding, it's usually clear from context.
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 152d
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 152d
I think, though am not sure, that this comes from the 13 colonies having once been "British America", which was by default what people meant when they talked about "America" in English, which stuck after independence.
nowadays anyway; before the German Empire was founded, "Deutschland" was usually understood as the entire German-speaking region (what we call "deutschsprachiger Raum" today), and between 1949 and 1990 "Deutschland" could mean the Federal Republic of Germany (usually including West Berlin), or the Federal Republic of Germany plus German Democratic Republic plus Berlin, or Germany in the borders of 1937, or even just East Germany whose constitution initially started "Deutschland ist eine unteilbare demokratische Republik".
zout@fedia.io · 3 pts · 152d
Isn't it because Benjamin Franklin (I think) started naming his fellow country men "Americans", in order to create cohesion?
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 152d
Latin Americans really get upset over it, and I think it's just irrational. They should let it go.
traxex@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 151d
One of my first arguments on here was over what constitutes a continent. I feel vindicated.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 151d
There can be only ONE Pangea gang 4L
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 151d
There's a great map men episode on this
daychilde@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 152d
Curios to know if you got it from here: https://lemmy.world/post/44478819/22754825
Could well be a coincidence, but I think it would be fun if I helped in the genesis of this thread :)
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 152d
Nope. I just saw the Olympic rings, one ring for every continent that participates. They are America, Europe, Oceana, Asia, and Africa.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 152d
Delightful coincidence, then. Fun either way :)
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 151d
Ok in what works is Antarctica not a continent???
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 150d
Probably in Columbus' travel books
Skullgrid@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
There's anywhere between 2 and 7:
or
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 151d
Why is antarctica considered an ocean? It's a land mass. Granted, the vast majority of it is covered in ice, but it is still above sea level.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 151d
There's no way Australia counts as the same continent as Afroeurasia, and Antarctica is a landmass (unlike the Arctic ice). 4 continents minimum.
hansolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 151d
So you're saying pi continents is possible?
I'm sold.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 151d
personally i'm on team 2 continents
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 0 pts · 151d
two: america and eurasrika
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 151d
What about Antarctica?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 151d
If antarctica is a continent, then so is outer space.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 151d
What do you define as a continent?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 151d
A continent is something that contains people, i guess.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 151d
So iceland is a continent?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 151d
lol yeah i didn't really think much about my comment though, maybe i should have made that clear earlier :D
hansolo@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 151d
Based on that
Continents: Walmarts and coffins
meldrik@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 151d
I always thought it had something to do with continental drift.
meldrik@lemmy.wtf · -1 pts · 151d
meldrik@lemmy.wtf · -1 pts · 151d
msokiovt@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 152d
I theorize that the Vatican can only control 172 countries at any one time, and have a seat selected for the NWO. As for the other 21 (as found in the UN), they have to be targeted for destruction by the Vatican.
blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 151d
All you need is one nitwit arguing for a nonsense position for there to be "no agreement."
There are 7 continents. Anyone who disagrees is just soapboxing for clout.
Allero@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 151d
6, actually. Eurasia is one continent and it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to claim there are two separate continents there.
iglou@programming.dev · 4 pts · 151d
I hope this is bait :) Because this is the dumbest comment I've read all week.
Quilotoa@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 151d
What do you define as a continent?
percent@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 151d
Most countries that speak romance languages use a six-continent model that combines the Americas into a single continent called America.
That would be a LOT of people soapboxing. Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, all countries in the Americas that are south of the US, and more.
It tends to create confusion in cross-cultural conversations online because "America" does not mean the same place for everyone.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 151d
What I'm saying is that one idiot disagreeing does not break consensus.
WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social · -5 pts · 152d
People can’t even agree on whether the earth is flat or not.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
That’s just because people get too close to the edge without proper safety equipment