• XeroxCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Less land? Sure, but not away from all land. Less people, debatable. The Atlantic split makes it hard to notice Alaska and Russia are miles apart. It also makes it seems like hundreds of pacific islands are at the edge of the world, isolated. It presents the Americas and Asia as, literally, a world apart. No matter where you draw your centerline, the edges have greatly distorted distances. It’s not just continental mass that’s important, but aquatic distances as well.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t think it’s particularly debatable that more people live in Europe and Africa and South America (the most notably distorted landmasses in the Pacific-centered map) than in Alaska, Eastern Russia, and the few Pacific isles that aren’t tucked right in next to Continental Asia and Australia. The most populous nation negatively affected by a Pacific split is probably New Zealand, and that only represents about five million people. The most populous nation negatively affected by an Atlantic split is probably Brazil, with over forty times as many people.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        If you can see South America is distorted as an entire continent in the pictured map, then you should be able to realize the PM split does the same to Eastern Asia. China alone has triple the population of South America. Also going to point out the standard split is not really in the Atlantic, but through England, France, and Spain, and is so far east of the North Atlantic that about 8 African countries lie entirely west of the center.