
For as Much as We Know About the World, There Are Still Dark Spots on the Map - Thevet
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/new-views-maps-unknown-oceans-power-transmission-distance-cities
======
hprotagonist
I've done some reasonably in-depth (hah) oceanographic GIS work.

we know _nothing_ about the oceans. Even the things one would think are pretty
easy are known at very, very coarse granularity. "what shape is the ocean
floor? what's it made of? how deep is the sediment here?" are questions that,
for the vast majority of the ocean, we have answers for at a resolution of
about one data point per square mile or worse, and that survey data is decades
old.

The last "proper", "get on a boat for 6 months and count animals" surveys of
marine mammal populations in some high risk areas of the ocean (like the gulf
of mexico) are almost 40 years old for some species.

etc.

~~~
bsbechtel
Yet many argue that we are overfishing and depleting our ocean's fish? What
evidence can those individuals use to prove this is true if our knowledge of
the oceans are as limited as you say they are?

~~~
cfmcdonald
By looking at how much fish is caught? It's pretty easy to measure:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Surexp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#/media/File:Surexploitation_morue_surp%C3%AAcheEn.jpg)

~~~
sametmax
That could be because fish are moving into other areas or learn to avoid the
nets. Fishing yields can't be the only source of data.

~~~
nate_meurer
Modern factory fishing fleets use sonar and track movements of fish
populations over vast areas. It's highly unlikely fish have learned to evade
sonar, or nets.

------
kiernanmcgowan
This reminds me of a line from "Bill Nye the Science Guy" from when I was
younger. Here's what my fuzzy memory recalls:

We know more about the moon than our oceans. Getting to the moon is easy, all
you need is a few billion dollars, a rocket pointed at space, and a space suit
to keep you pressurized.

In the ocean you have to deal with such unimaginable crushing pressures that
push the limits of human engineering. Whats insane is that there is life
there! There is so much left in the ocean to explore because humans have not
been able to get there yet.

~~~
kijin
The pressure difference between 1 atm and the moon is exactly 1 atm. It's less
than the difference between the inside and outside of most car tires.

The pressure difference between 1 atm and the bottom of the ocean is hundreds
of atm, and the deepest spots can go over 1000 atm.

Put this way, it's easy to see why the ocean is so much tougher.

Luckily, the ocean is much closer than the moon, and the same gravity that is
responsible for the tyranny of the rocket equation actually helps you get to
the bottom. We've been to both places: the moon with Apollo landers, and the
bottom of the Mariana Trench with bathyscaphes. I hope we'll keep returning to
learn more about both. Of course, this will be much easier with robots that
don't need to stay at 1 atm.

~~~
noir_lord
Not sure the robots help that much (apart from not dying when things go
wrong).

As you said in some parts pressure is 1000atm, if we can pressurise the robots
to 50atm that still leaves 950atm to deal with, I'm curious what happens to
electronics at 100atm, 500atm and 1000atm. I'd imagine some components
wouldn't handle that very well.

Of course robots have other huge advantages, duration (no messy waste
problems, no need for oxygen/carbon dioxide handling systems, no need for (as
much) heating) I guess.

~~~
IndrekR
It is much easier to keep electronics working down there when empty space is
filled with liquid instead of pressurised gas (usually nitrogen). It is not
the pressure, but pressure difference, that matters and liquids are not as
compressible as gas is.

Edit: just adding a note that I have worked with submarine electronics[1] for
a while and can say we even do not know much about what is happening near the
shore, not to even talk about the unexploredness of oceans. Quite a lot of
HW/SW in use by scientists is far from modern. We need more initiatives like
the Ocean Discovery XPRIZE[2] to bring attention to the field.

[1] [http://www.flydogmarine.com](http://www.flydogmarine.com)

[2] [https://oceandiscovery.xprize.org](https://oceandiscovery.xprize.org)

------
jly
The obvious emphasis of the maps is on the vastness of oceans and how much
remains unknown, but I would stress also surprising is how little we know
about the biodiversity of land. The 'remoteness from cities' map highlights
places based on how few humans live there, but many of these areas (dense
tropical forests) are home to the majority of species on the planet. We are
barely now starting to see some consensus on estimates for how many species of
land-dwelling arthropods there even are (several million). We know nothing or
next to nothing about the vast majority of these. This is pretty amazing to
me.

------
erikb
I'm a little disappointed that this article makes such a big claim but
actually states in the last map that all land is discovered. First of all I
don't think it's true. At least some spots will be visited so infrequently or
only by a disconnected tribe of people that it's basically unexplored. And
second the whole discussion doesn't make sense if all land is discovered. Of
course there are undiscovered pieces of water (maybe including small islands)
somewhere. For lack of importance they don't count though.

~~~
obel1x
It doesn't say that all land is discovered. It only shows data about oceans;
it's called "Unknown Oceans" and shows data from the Census of Marine Life.

------
jrd79
This is a deceptive title. The maps presented are interesting, and the article
touches on related points of where infrastructure is located, and where people
live, but aside from noting that parts of the deep ocean have not been mapped
in detail, this article does not show that any "dark spots" exist on the map.

~~~
pessimizer
There are actual black smudges on a map that represent, based on the map's
key, unexplored areas. So both literally and figuratively, this article shows
"dark spots" existing on a map.

------
zodPod
I find myself wishing there was more contrast between 24hrs and the days scale
on the remoteness chart. The scale goes up pretty quickly from 2 days to 10
days and it's really hard to tell what would be more than 24hrs of travel
time. I say this because I was looking at the chart thinking anything dark was
10 days which was weird that certain parts in Australia would be 10 days when,
next to them, was just hours but it turns out the darkness is just present for
lower numbers.

------
m0d0nne11
May it _EVER_ be so...!

------
irrational
Not what I was expecting. I was hoping for a dark spot on the map that might
harbor an island with dinosaurs still roaming. Sad.

~~~
SurrealSoul
maybe there are sea dinosaurs :) don't give up hope!

~~~
hprotagonist
We found them in the 30s.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth)

