• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    Our accepted definition of what a continent is sucks. Why is Europe considered a continent but India is not? Every argument for Europe being a separate continent applies even better to India.

    Europe just wanted to be special and controlled science at the time, change my mind.

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It has to do with geology. Europe basically swallowed up and mixed in with another continent a long time ago after Pangea broke up

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        it really doesn’t:

        In contrast, the present eastern boundary of Europe partially adheres to the Ural and Caucasus Mountains, which is somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent compared to any clear-cut definition of the term “continent”.

        The current division of Eurasia into two continents now reflects East-West cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences which vary on a spectrum rather than with a sharp dividing line.

        There’s really no physical reasoning for it. You can read on in that article for the historical basis if you want (basically, Homer and other Greeks coined it, and it just kind of stuck), but it’s really quite arbitrary where scientists actually draw the line.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          My bad, should clarify I was referring to this specifically:

          In geology, a continent is defined as “one of Earth’s major landmasses, including both dry land and continental shelves”. The geological continents correspond to seven large areas of continental crust that are found on the tectonic plates, but exclude small continental fragments such as Madagascar that are generally referred to as microcontinents. Continental crust is only known to exist on Earth.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            If we’re talking about tectonic plates, then:

            • Europe is part of Eurasia
            • Arabian peninsula, India, and far east Russia aren’t part of it, but we’d probably include them as subcontintents

            We’d end up with the following continents:

            • N. America (technically includes far east Russia) w/ Caribbean subcontinent
            • S. America
            • Eurasia w/ Indian and Arabian subcontintents
            • Africa w/ Somali subcontinent
            • Australia
            • Antarctica

            Image.

            Honestly, that would be a much more satisfactory definition than the current one, which seems to be “large landmass bigger than Greenland with logical separations when they’re too big.” What I really don’t understand is when people say Europe and Asia are separate, but N. America and S. America are combined, that’s logically inconsistent.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        If we’re going based on landmass, shouldn’t Russia be its own continent? Russia is almost twice as big as Europe, and it’s culturally unique compared to its neighbors.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yup, but which two depends on how you define “continent.” It either spans Europe and Asia if you go by common definitions of continents, or it spans Eurasia and North America if you look at tectonic continental plates.