Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2021, 12:57 PM
 
439 posts, read 290,215 times
Reputation: 637

Advertisements

There's a YT channel that talks about the the world's geography, and how much it makes it inhospitable to live. Like the geography in the US and Europe is most hospitable, whereas the likes of South America, Africa, and even many parts of Asia it just sucks and is hard to deal with. Why is it land such as North America and Europe, relatively speaking is quite good but essentially the geography sucks so bad nearly everywhere else?

Do you think things would be better if we lived in a one world continent such as it was in the past such as Pangea where everything was one massive landmass before what we know as continents broke away?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2021, 01:18 PM
 
1,187 posts, read 1,374,003 times
Reputation: 1699
The premise is wrong. In what sense does geography of South America, Africa and Asia suck?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2021, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Somewhere on the Moon.
10,108 posts, read 14,985,985 times
Reputation: 10397


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_228464792

So much of North America is white, red, orange, light blue... you know, land that has a poor or medium performance. Much of Canada is useless as far as soil performance is concerned. Mexico has a bigger share of its territory with land with high performance. India has much more high performance soil than either Mexico, USA, and Canada. Nowhere in Indonesia is there as much low performing land as in the USA and Canada.

Last edited by AntonioR; 09-28-2021 at 01:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2021, 01:49 PM
 
Location: London, UK
4,096 posts, read 3,728,855 times
Reputation: 2900
What utter nonsense. I understand how huge expanses such as the Amazon and Sahara can be difficult to live in for most humans but the Colombian Andes alone is the size of Italy and a perfect place to live. I don't see what's so special about the Scandinavian climate or Southern Texan climate. Eurocentric ignorance knows no bounds till this day.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2021, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Tricity, PL
61,743 posts, read 87,194,708 times
Reputation: 131741
Define "inhospitable".
You mean climate, geography (mountains, forests, deserts, ice, unfarmable land, no fresh water etc.), natural disasters (earthquakes, wildfires, active volcanos...), man made disasters (chemical spills, nuclear accidents..)?

Nobody lives there:
Spoiler

snowbrains.com

World maps here:
https://vividmaps.com/nobody-lives-here/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2021, 07:03 PM
 
271 posts, read 294,961 times
Reputation: 645
It's because humans have a very narrow range of climate conditions in which we can both survive and thrive. For temperature, a mean annual temperature of about 5 to 20 C seems to be optimal. Colder than that, you get permafrost and agriculture becomes difficult which in turn limits population. Warmer than that, people can survive but disease flourishes which in turn limits development. Likewise with precipitation. Too dry means plants (including crop plants) can't grow which is why large populations can't be sustained in deserts (with the notable exception of major rivers like the Nile). Too wet seems to be less of a problem but can cause nutrients to leach out of the soil, making agriculture difficult.

A temperate, moist climate can only be found in a small number of regions, namely eastern North America, eastern Asia, and Europe. Anywhere else is too hot (sub-Saharan Africa, most of Latin America, south and southeast Asia), too dry (western U.S., North Africa, southwestern/central Asia, and the Australian Outback), or too cold (most of Canada, Siberia, Antarctica).

There are of course exceptions like the Colombian Andes, but that is only because the high altitude produces an island of mild climate in the tropical heat. And not surprisingly you find large cities in such places (Bogota has a population of seven million). Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Addis Ababa and Nairobi also fall into this category.

Regarding Pangea, no that would not be better for the simple reason that the interior would be far too dry to be habitable due to being too far from the moisture-giving sea. Humans would only be able to live along the coasts of such a supercontinent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2021, 02:25 PM
 
1,187 posts, read 1,374,003 times
Reputation: 1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by secondbreakfast View Post
It's because humans have a very narrow range of climate conditions in which we can both survive and thrive. For temperature, a mean annual temperature of about 5 to 20 C seems to be optimal.
There is a whole lot more population living in areas that average about 20-22C than 5-7C. In fact, the average Earth temperature weighted by population is around 21C, so from the standpoint of average temperature, 21C is much more inhabitable than 6 or 7C.

You may emphasize on average temperature vs. HDI or something like this, but then again, correlation doesn’t imply causation, and it’s even dubious there is a significant correlation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2021, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Østenfor sol og vestenfor måne
17,916 posts, read 24,369,707 times
Reputation: 39038
How can this question be answered when absolutely no criteria have been given?

The Rocky Mountains are great for skiing, bad for farming.

Ukraine is great for growing wheat, not so great for mountain climbing.

The Sahara desert is great for tanning, poor for water skiing.


If you are talking about human survival, Desert areas may limit human population growth for Hunter-Gatherer societies, but that lifestyle can be optimal in temperate zones.

For an agricultural society with low technology, a place with adequate rainfall and good soils are necessary for human populations to thrive.

In a high tech industrial/post-industrial society, humans can live almost anywhere (relatively) comfortably since food can be grown even in marginal areas and transported around the world. In this situation, much of our food supply actually is grown in marginal areas that are irrigated and artifically fertilized and tilled, and our societies build over the best natural farmland with endless subdivisions full of HOAs that prohibit you from growing food on your perfect soil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2021, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Summit, NJ
1,879 posts, read 2,028,827 times
Reputation: 2496
I mean, when you compare it to the proportion of the known universe that is inhabitable...we don't have it too bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2021, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Green Country
2,868 posts, read 2,822,843 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_228464792

So much of North America is white, red, orange, light blue... you know, land that has a poor or medium performance. Much of Canada is useless as far as soil performance is concerned. Mexico has a bigger share of its territory with land with high performance. India has much more high performance soil than either Mexico, USA, and Canada. Nowhere in Indonesia is there as much low performing land as in the USA and Canada.
So from this map, the countries with the geographic jackpot are Argentina, Ukraine, and USA.

Argentina, however, lacks hundreds of navigable rivers, so they can't transport their food as efficiently, and have to build/maintain costly transport systems. And their geographic isolation makes them even more cost-uncompetitive.

Ukraine is extremely valuable, but that comes as a double-edged sword since Russia wants it. Ukraine can't properly defend itself given the size difference, so it being an agricultural basketcase might also be a curse.

And then there's the U.S. which has the highest quality soil, hundreds of rivers, a massive freshwater stock (Great Lakes), the world's best barrier system (Intracoastal Waterway), flat arable land making canals easier to build, perfect temperature for high-yield crops like corn and wheat, and thousands of miles of open ocean without a single rival nearby.

Honestly, the only way the U.S. could have had better geography is if the Great Plains extended another 1,000 miles West. It's otherwise nearly perfect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top