Am I the only one who is confused about continents?

  For one, how many continents are there, really?

  The most conservative definition I have seen defines four continents:
America, Eurasia, Africa and Oceania. (For some reason Antarctica is not
included in the list of continents in many traditional definitions. For
instance, when I went to primary school, they didn't mention Antarctica
in the list of continents, although they had a classic list of five
continents.)

  The most liberal definition may include as many as seven continents:
North-America, South-America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica.

  So which is it? Or which combination is the "official" one?

  Also the very definition of "continent" seems rather fuzzy. If it's
defined in a purely geographical sense, in other words, "a big mass of
land completely surrounded by water, and much bigger than what can be
considered an island" (if we define Greenland as the largest island,
and anything larger than that a continent), then there would be five
continents: America, Eurasia, Africa, Oceania and Antarctica. (In this
sense the most conservative definition would be almost right, except for
dismissing Antarctica.)

  However, almost nobody splits continents like that. Most prominently,
Europe and Asia are considered separate continents. I have hard time
figuring out why. It seems to be more a geopolitical division than
anything else.

  Dividing America into two continents seems to be a matter of taste:
It's divided into two large parts joined by a very narrow piece of land.
It's *almost* like the two large parts were completely surrounded by
water, so some consider America actually two continents, simply joined
by a narrow piece of land. One could also see some geopolitical division
here as well, comparable to the Europe-Asia division.

  And one more thing: Is it Oceania or Australia? When I went to primary
school, it was Oceania. However, many call it Australia. The former
definition would include all the islands to belong to the "continent
of Oceania", while the latter definition would exclude the islands from
belonging to the continent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Am I the only one who is confused about continents?

You're talking about something that has no real-world definition, and is 
entirely arbitrary.  As such, the definition can be changed on a whim :(

Personally, I was taught that NA, SA, EU, AS, and AF were the 
"definitive" Continents.  AN wasn't mentioned, and OC was considered 
part of SE Asia.

However, it makes more sense to me to treat all 7 as separate 
continents, partly for geographical reasons (NA/SA) and partly for 
political reasons (EU / AS).

In the end, though, it's a bit like defining what a "planet" is: you can 
try, but it's not going to change anything.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

>   Am I the only one who is confused about continents?

I was under the impression that Oceania was a loose
political affiliation of islands in the South Pacific Ocean
and the Eastern Indian Ocean, which the Australian
government might be affiliated with, but that doesn't
make the Australian continent into the Oceanian continent.
If they're teaching that it's PC baloney, it's no
secret that liberals are confused.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Am I the only one who is confused about continents?

I was taught there were seven, but

>   For one, how many continents are there, really?

really there is just one. It broke apart some time ago.

Sam

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:57:58 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

>   Am I the only one who is confused about continents?
>
>   For one, how many continents are there, really?

As has been mentioned it's about as concrete a definition as "planet", to  
my mind the best definition in a geographical sense would be - a tectonic  
plate with a land mass (uncovered by water) equal to or greater then the  
land mass (covered by water).

The list of continents would then be

North America
Africa
Eurasia
Arabia
and India

with South America, Australia/Oceania and Antarctica possibly being fudged  
in if we lower the limits and/or define water as liquid.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> land mass equal to or greater then the land mass

> define water as liquid.

Umm... I think you should write that post again.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:43:15 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:


>> land mass equal to or greater then the land mass

The stuff below water is still land mass.

>> define water as liquid.

because part of the land mass of the Antarctic plate is below solid water  
and not liquid water.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> because part of the land mass of the Antarctic plate is below solid water  
> and not liquid water.

  Maybe not for long. :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:56:43 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> because part of the land mass of the Antarctic plate is below solid  
>> water and not liquid water.
>
>   Maybe not for long. :P

[chuckle] and in the same instance we could be taking about  
once-continents.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message