| ▲ | rich_sasha 9 hours ago |
| I have always found it a bizarre idea that we allegedly judge a country's importance by it's size on a Mercator projection map. Does anyone really think Greenland is the most important place in the world? Europe is tiny, yet the kind of people to complain about it will also complain about the outsized importance of it. Africa, which is apparently a victim of such projectionism, is also placed in the middle because of where the arbitrary Greenwich meridian goes. |
|
| ▲ | notahacker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Also notable that in the centuries following Mercator projection, Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the northern parts of South America actually shrunk by the map were regarded as vast, unexplored wildernesses full of resources to plunder (and the northern realms expanded by the projection as inaccessible icy wasteland). Difficult to imagine the Gall-Peters projection making conquistadors and colonists from little European countries more respectful of the inhabitants of the equatorial realms, though I guess they might have got lost more using it... |
|
| ▲ | thinkingemote 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ironically it's by looking at a globe rather than even a map like this that Greenlands worth becomes more visible. We need to centre the globe on Greenland and see what it tells us. Greenland has at least two reasons to be worth more then it is now: in the future when the north polar ice sheet melts. The arctic circle becomes a navigable ocean. It's a short way from USA and Europe to Asia (or Russia). Secondly removing the ice means it's much easier to get the essential hydrocarbons underneath of which there are lots of and which many countries will want. So the reasons for Greenland is geography, security, control, trade and economy. And by thinking long term. It can also explain some off handed and mocked comments about Canada too. |
|
| ▲ | varenc 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In my childhood I definitely thought Greenland was a much physically large place than it is, because of the mercator world map the hung on the wall in home room. Was dumbfounded when I learned it actually fits within the continental US. |
|
| ▲ | thenoblesunfish 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Agreed - territorial area is only one measure of importance, and probably not a great one. What would be more useful on a wall, if we are interested in such things, are bubbles with size showing population, GDP, life expectancy, etc. (a la https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles&url=v2 ), arranged to preserve, as much as possible, country positions on the projection of your choosing. |
|
| ▲ | fph 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Greenwich meridian is not actually 100% arbitrary. It is a convenient location that does not split into two any significant landmasses. |
| |
| ▲ | mapmeld 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think enough people talk about how lucky we are that the International Date Line can roughly follow a line of longitude 180 degrees from the Greenwich meridian. If you were on a planet with more land, or we could only draw it through the Atlantic or Australia, timezones would be a lot weirder. | |
| ▲ | MrJohz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It does split off part of Russia, I believe. The Florence meridian works slightly better for avoiding splitting any landmasses. As I understand it, it's not the best location, it's just good enough and was very popular for historical reasons. | |
| ▲ | notahacker 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's mostly a convenient location for a group based at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich to define... |
|
|
| ▲ | PaulRobinson 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | francisdavey 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it popular though? When I studied Geography at school, we had a standard school atlas that was used by a huge number of schools throughout the country and across several generations. It had maps on essentially every page - of course. Only one was Mercator: showing time zones. That's it. Growing up, I did not see Mercator at all often. | |
| ▲ | bazoom42 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > ask yourself why the mercator projection was so popular for so long Besause maps was developed as tools for navigation. But if you want an idea of the relative sizes and positions of the countries of the world, you should use a globe. Regarding colonization, I’d note that Greenland, Canada and Siberia wasn’t the greatest colonizers. The conspiracy theory about Marcator justifying colonization does not really make sense. Norway, Iceland and Greenland gets a much bigger size boost than Spain, France and UK. But Greenland was colonized, not a colonizer. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Besause maps was developed as tools for navigation. It's not perfect for navigation either, especially over long distance if you want to navigate from Europe to the US, going in straight line over a Mercator projection is going to make your trip much longer than it ought to be. So while it makes sense for smaller-scale maps because the angles are preserved, it's totally pointless for a world map. As an example compare this to the straigh line between Edinburgh and Miami in mercator projection: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=edinburgh+miami |
| |
| ▲ | luckylion 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > However, ask yourself why the mercator projection was so popular for so long, and why resistance to other projections took so long to counter. Wasn't that primarily because of sea trade and the mercator projection being very useful for that because you can draw a straight line on it and then set a straight course? | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | As I said in another comment[1] this is only true at small scale. As soon as you start crossing oceans, you absolutely do not want to navigate in straight line as it's going to inflate your travel by a significant amount of distance. As such, while the Mercator projection makes total sense for a map of northern Europe or the Caribbean, it makes absolutely no sense as a map of the entire world. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45002873 | | |
| ▲ | luckylion 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did they have better map projections for cross-oceanic navigation 500 years ago when the mercator projection was invented? | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAIK you'd need a projection for each origin/destination pair, so it's not exactly convenient. A globe is by far the best tool for such a job. |
|
|
|
|