I mean, and.. with the map South-up, all the stuff is crammed down at the bottom now, no?

Aren’t most of the people and land and things in the North part? A casual Google [0] suggests 88% of the humans, for example?

I don’t understand the “good” and “bad” thing, but it does make sense to me that you scan something “earlier” or “later” in casting your eye across a mass of stuff.

If we read from top to bottom… doesn't it make sense to put the part where the stuff is earlier in order than the part with mainly oceans?

It makes slightly more sense to me to argue about which continental masses should go on the left or the right of the map, e.g. [1]. Although compositionally, if you put the Eurasian continent on the left side (“first” for left-to-right readers), doesn’t the massive Pacific exaggerate the impression of a discontinuity or a vast gap between geographical clusters of humans?

[0] https://brilliantmaps.com/human-hemisphere/#:~:text=88%25%20...

[1] https://www.mapresources.com/products/world-digital-vector-r...

>I don’t understand the “good” and “bad” thing

The author has an inferiority complex.