
Africa Dwarfs China, Europe and the U.S - alexcasalboni
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/africa-dwarfs-china-europe-and-the-u-s/
======
ramanan
Related link : The Mercator Puzzle : [https://gmaps-
samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/poly/puzzledr...](https://gmaps-
samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/poly/puzzledrag.html)

A nice way to get a feel for the distortions.

~~~
alexcasalboni
Wow! That is awesome, seriously mind-blowing and fun to play with!

~~~
oblio
I can't figure out what hovers over West Africa :(

Edit (spoiler): it's actually in Asia :)

------
chr
Long time ago, back in 1992, Kai Krause was famous in desktop publishing for
his software "Kai's Power Tools" \- a set of plugins for Adobe Photoshop. Kai
is one of the designers of this map.

~~~
mozumder
Kai Power Tools had some great UI as well.. probably the most advanced at the
time.

~~~
nakedrobot2
Kai is THE designer of this map.
[http://kai.sub.blue/en/africa.html](http://kai.sub.blue/en/africa.html)

------
jacobolus
Blog spam (sorta). Original source:
[http://kai.sub.blue/en/africa.html](http://kai.sub.blue/en/africa.html)

~~~
jacobolus
While we’re talking about map projections, I’ve long been partial to Cahill’s
octahedral maps. Gene Keyes has some derivatives and a comprehensive website
about the subject.
[http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html](http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html)

I’ve recently been trying to make some better Cahill spinoffs of my own.
Here’s a conformal version:
[http://i.imgur.com/RhZL1FN.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/RhZL1FN.jpg)

~~~
carl-j
Would you mind sharing how you go about making these?

I found the Cahill projection a few years ago and was disappointed that I
couldn't seem to find one in print.

The one I found that seem to resemble it is the Waterman projection which is
also available in printed versions.

~~~
Gene-Keyes
An award-winning 5' Cahill-Keyes wall map, compiled by Duncan Webb, published
in Feb. 2014, can be ordered here:
[http://www.genekeyes.com/world_map_poster.html](http://www.genekeyes.com/world_map_poster.html)

------
larrydag
I didn't read the article but the first thing that jumped into my head is why
are they comparing the size of a continent to sizes of countries?

~~~
JDDunn9
In other news, look how many continents can fit in the ocean. See how many
moons can fit in the earth. Lots of smaller things can fit in larger things!

~~~
anc84
5673 million football fields fit into Africa while just 398 million fit into
Greenland. For comparison: The US can take 1800 million football fields.

------
mavroprovato
...and by Europe it means Europe minus Nordic countries, part of Russia and
most of ex-Soviet states.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Right, because including all of Europe wouldn't make this fancy map work.

------
anc84
You should read the opinions of a professional cartographer on this
infographic (or its predecessor rather, this one seems changed):
[http://cartonerd.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/welcome-to-
marauding...](http://cartonerd.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/welcome-to-marauding-
carto-nerd.html)

I _really_ dislike the article saying that "On a flat map of the world,
Greenland appears as big as Africa". That is utter bullshit. Yes, it says
"most prevalent flat maps" in the subtitle but even that seems not based on
anything but agenda. Mercator is often used today with online maps because
people (especially journalists) just _love_ Google Maps (which uses Web
Mercator by default) and seem incapable of learning about alternatives or just
map projections.

Yes, the projection can be a problem and yes, this is a fun way illustrating
it but please go the extra mile and do it scientifically as your name
suggests. What projection was used for this example? Is the 3D actually
geodetically correct or did another oblivious artist scale and move things so
they look nice?

------
Infernal
Somewhat interesting that Kai decided to include only the contiguous U.S., on
a map about visualizing the true size of various land masses.

I poked around for a minute, and it turns out Alaska and Hawaii combine to
have the same surface area as Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the U.K.,
Ireland, the Netherlands, and Belgium combined.

------
jfaucett
For those interested in seeing the exact sizes here's the area of each
continent in km and miles:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Continent#Area_and_populatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Continent#Area_and_population)

One thing I noticed from looking over the above wikipedia comparison is that a
lot of the land mass is probably uninhabitable, and it made me wonder how much
is uninhabitable when comparing land-masses. The closest thing I could find
was a chart of currently uninhabited regions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uninhabited_regions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uninhabited_regions)

~~~
mxfh
I think it's nice to educate people about map projections and that the earth
is not a flat map, but area hardly is a measurement that dwarfs things in any
other way than numbers. In economic terms it matters how many people that land
can support, either trough agriculture or it's natural resources.

If it's just about area, the Pacific Ocean alone would dwarf all land masses
all-together.

In general this approach of raising awareness to regions leaves a lot to
question, especially if it's mixed with a humanitarian tone:

 _Understanding Africa 's immense size helps us appreciate how difficult it
may be to solve the continent's poverty and drought problems_

To answer that: No, just no. As said, it might help raise initial awareness,
but that's about it. Poverty is not a function of land area, just to name
Bangladesh or Canada.

Alternatively one might point out, that Nigeria's current population alone is
already on par with that of half of the USA's at a 10th of its area (~1⅓ of
Texas).

Some population density maps:

Africa:
[http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/fig_tab/nclimat...](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/fig_tab/nclimate1051_F1.html)

[http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/downloads/maps/nagdc/nagdc-...](http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/downloads/maps/nagdc/nagdc-
population-landscape-climate-estimates-v3/place3-popdens-2010-africa.png)

Global: [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age-of-man/map-
int...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age-of-man/map-interactive)

------
ph0rque
I wonder why they don't compare it to Russia? :)

~~~
sancha_
Africa doesn't dwarf Russia necessarily, depending on the definition, but it's
size is still almost twice as big as Russias.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Population might be a more cogent variable. E.g. Alaskans brag that if Texas
doesn't curb its arrogance, Alaska will split in two and then Texas will be
the THIRD largest state.

------
Spongeroberto
I've been seeing this subject (bad size perceptions when using Mercator
projection) come up a lot as a topic the past year or two. What gives?

Didn't anyone ever see a globe when they were a kid?

------
divideby0
There's a great scene from the West Wing about this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-
PrBRtTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVX-PrBRtTY)

------
lsniddy
if you are ever in Boston - you can stand inside a three story globe and get a
true sense of how massive Africa is.

[http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/project/mapparium/](http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/project/mapparium/)

------
abandonliberty
Great illustration, but it's sorta blogspam so here's a reliable alternative
(it compresses the y-axis to achieve equal area). Or you know, use a globe or
google earth.

Lambert equal area projection:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Lambert-...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Lambert-
cylindrical-equal-area-projection.jpg)

obligatory xkcd: [https://xkcd.com/977/](https://xkcd.com/977/)

------
xiaq
Obligatory xkcd [https://xkcd.com/977/](https://xkcd.com/977/)

~~~
baldfat
This might be the best xkcd in terms of informational and being funny at the
same time.

~~~
blumkvist
I see it for the first time and I have to agree!

------
lexcorvus
I have a sneaking suspicion there's a political agenda behind this article,
but maybe I'm just _projecting_.

~~~
lexcorvus
Oh, come on, people. _Projecting_ is a pun, and the article is obviously
political. Grow a sense of humor. Downvoters: if you want to see an asshole,
find a mirror.

------
henok
This is interesting!

------
comrade1
This has come up before on hn, but I always find it interesting how hard China
is pushing into Africa economically: [http://www.economist.com/news/middle-
east-and-africa/2163955...](http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-
africa/21639554-china-has-become-big-africa-now-backlash-one-among-many)

[http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/china-embracing-africa-but-
no...](http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/china-embracing-africa-but-not-
africans/)

[http://qz.com/217597/how-a-million-chinese-migrants-are-
buil...](http://qz.com/217597/how-a-million-chinese-migrants-are-building-a-
new-empire-in-africa/)

(that third article is probably the most interesting)

~~~
wahsd
They don't have the baggage of all the atrocities of the past, they aren't
overtly racist on principle, and they have no qualms taking advantage or the
situation and participating in the corruption and exploitation. How is that
surprising?

~~~
barry-cotter
This is ignorant of both history and the present. Speaking as a three year
resident of China they are a hell of a lot more racist than is common in the
West. The only reason China doesn't have atrocity baggage in Africa is that
they didn't have the opportunity. The Qing were all about genocide when it was
useful. I'd say ask the Oirat or the Dzhungars except these groups no longer
exist.

------
Grue3
Awful blogspam devoid of any original thought. Besides, it is obvious, looking
at the provided Mercator map, that Africa is at least twice the size of US and
China, so the argument that Mercator somehow makes Africa appear much smaller
is clearly bullshit. The only areas that Mercator distorts significantly are
polar regions. You would have a point comparing Canada with Africa on Mercator
map. However the US and China are close enough to equator that the area
distortion is not very significant. The fact that a trash article like this
already got 100 points makes me lose faith in this community.

~~~
elektromekatron
The US is between the 30th and 45th parallel north. South Africa lies on the
30th parallel south. There is massive distortion between the sizes of the US
and Africa on a Mercator map.

edit - are you looking at the right line for the equator?

~~~
Grue3
Except the distortion is _clearly_ not massive if you look at the map and the
actual size comparison on the globe, I don't know why you keep saying that.
Check the math here [1]. You would see that the latitudes where US and China
are located are not massively distorted, even if you don't trust your own
eyes. The whole "Mercator map is used (or was made) so that US appears larger
than it is" is such bullshit that it boggles my mind that anyone seriously
believes it.

[1] [http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/110730/mercator-
scale...](http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/110730/mercator-scale-factor-
is-changed-along-the-meridians-as-a-function-of-latitude)

~~~
elektromekatron
Mercator is for navigation, it has nothing to do with wanting to make some
countries larger than others, it merely lets you chart courses easier and that
was more important than preserving scale.

From your link the contiguous US would appear to be represented at ~ 1.7 times
larger scale than the continent of Africa, on average. If I am comparing area
and something is generally over 1.5 times bigger than it should be, that is a
massive distortion, other more massive distortions notwithstanding.

edited to add -

I don't think the article or anyone in particular is trying to claim that the
Mercator projection was created or used to make the US look larger, I mean,
the map predates the USA by over 200 years.

People are trying to discourage it because it is a distortion that is only
really of use to people navigating the sea in boats using paper charts.

~~~
Grue3
>From your link the contiguous US would appear to be represented at ~ 1.7
times larger scale than the continent of Africa, on average.

Look at this chart in particular:
[http://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ilC.png](http://i.stack.imgur.com/Y9ilC.png) 1.7
larger is nowhere to be found. The very north of continental US compared to
equator is below 1.5. If you consider that Africa extends north and south of
equator and US south of 45th, the magnification is much smaller. _Moreover_
consider that we're comparing areas instead of lengths, so visually the extent
of magnification is even less apparent. You keep repeating the word "massive
distortion", but it simply doesn't apply to the latitudes of continental US.
This is very easy to check if you have a globe and a Mercator map. And yet the
myth persists...

>People are trying to discourage it because it is a distortion that is only
really of use to people navigating the sea in boats using paper charts.

That is patently false. Mercator has many very useful properties, such as
local conformality which is why Google Maps and other maps providers use it.
It is, in fact, the only cylindrical map projection with local conformality.
Which is very useful for generating map tiles.

------
drzaiusapelord
Like most "big countries" or continents in this case, most of the land is
useless and unlivable. We're talking 7% arable land in sub Saharan Africa. So
you have all this landmass but only a tiny bit is usable.

We often see these maps with Russia or Canada or Australia, but the reality is
very little of land is usable. Large countries that effectively use their
land, have roads to every part, have significant settlements in every region,
etc are rare. The USA comes to mind. China would qualify if they didn't annex
Tibet and didn't leave the whole western side of their country largely
undeveloped.

Size, while interesting to look at on a map, is a kinda useless metric. For
example, Japan is smaller than California, but its one of the world's cultural
and economic powerhouses. Or South Korea, which would fit between Los Angeles
and San Francisco.

~~~
smtddr
Despite your asserted uselessness,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_resources_of_Africa)

 _" Some economists have talked about the 'scourge of raw materials', large
quantities of rare raw materials putting Africa under heavy pressures and
tensions, leading to wars and slow development. Despite these abundance of
natural resources, claims suggest that many Western nations like the United
States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom as well as emerging economic
powerhouses like China often exploit Africa's natural resources today, causing
most of the value and money from the natural resources to go to the West and
East Asia rather than Africa, further causing the poverty in Africa."_

