Amazing (and grim) maps of the world.

[GIGObuster]

How the world really shapes up

We all know what the world looks like. But a new series of extraordinary maps shows our planet in a very different light.

Rather than defining each country by size, these computer-generated modified maps - or cartograms - redraw the globe with each country’s size proportionate to its strengths, or weaknesses, in a whole series of categories.

For instance, when it comes to military spending, the U.S. appears bloated, but Africa is huge when HIV prevalence is mapped.

The cartograms were produced in a unique collaboration between the universities of Michigan in the U.S. and Sheffield. Here are images and more details on some of the most fascinating…

Like one of the commentators said:

“Better stay out of Africa”.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Maps like this are nothing new.
I saw a set in the 70’s.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Maps like this are nothing new.
I saw a set in the 70’s.

They’re still cool. And I bet you didn’t see the HIV map in the 70’s.

[OpalCat]

New isn’t the point. They help put things in perspective in a very visual way. I think they’re interesting.

[mobo85]

Complete list of maps, from the project’s official site. Some of the findings are very interesting.

[Nava]

I’d like to know where they get their data and how comparable it is, though. For example, literacy rates published by the Spanish government refer exclusively to people “literate in one of the four official languages” and someone “able to read and write simple sentences” is not considered lliterate in Spain - they’re considered semi-literate.

[Muffin]

@Nava

I’d like to know where they get their data and how comparable it is, though. For example, literacy rates published by the Spanish government refer exclusively to people “literate in one of the four official languages” and someone “able to read and write simple sentences” is not considered lliterate in Spain - they’re considered semi-literate.

They quoted Homer! Now that shows erudition, wisdom, and a sense of history.

(Oops, it was Homer Simpson they quoted, on the Nuclear Power map. Oh well.)

[Contrapuntal]

Thanks for this link, GIGO. Food for thought.

[Ice_Wolf]

That is fascinating. My thanks to you as well, GIGObuster. Stuff of interest even for us NZers. Cheers.

[mobo85]

@Muffin

They quoted Homer! Now that shows erudition, wisdom, and a sense of history.

(Oops, it was Homer Simpson they quoted, on the Nuclear Power map. Oh well.)

There’s another Homer?

[B.Serum]

Eh…

I’ve seen these before. These are great in concept, and it’s really fun to see (recognizable) land masses get squished and bloated per info set, but I’d argue you can only get half-way to a true snapshot sense of the information being presented when it comes to the data sets that are per-captia-specific…

Though it does offer a separate population map as a comparison, that still ignores population dispersal within the national borders. Therefore, it doesn’t distinguish the usefulness of (for example) landmine casualties in a sparsely populated area (Australian Outback) versus landmine casualties in a heavily populated area (U.S. Eastern Seaboard).
Were I tasked with the same assignment,

1. I would opt for a different equal-area map (I prefer the Mollweide to the Gall-Peters projection that they use, purely subjective)

2. Use value (0% tint — 100% tint) to define population centers. This is an example, except imagine it in tones of gray. In the cases of nation-specific data (such as military spending), each nation would get a consistent tint).

3. Use chroma to represent the data set, meaning gray tints (whatever the population density) would be unaffected areas, while full chroma areas would get the full saturated vivid color.

[even_sven]

@GIGObuster

“Better stay out of Africa”.

It’s not so bad once you get there. Just look at the housing prices map. My house here rents for one year for less than a month of my rent in California.