For most of the current merkin troubles the wider world has watched in bemusement, angst, indignation and horror as the current poor shower of US hegemonists seek to enact/extend manifest destiny by pinching somebody, anybody, else’s territory (Greenland, Canada, Gaza, Venezuela et al). The sort of dodge you’d expect from a shonky NY real estate agent.
But in the last couple of days the rest of the civilised world have cocked a snoot. Yes, it does nowt material but tinker with perceptions. But pithy.
The motion to adopt the Equal Earth cartographic projection was passed overwhelmingly with 164 votes in favour, 6 abstensions and a solitary dissent. And guess which bastion of bonhomie and self-interest got it’s hegemonic knickers in a knot over the visual? Even after having been foreshadowed in the “West Wing” Season 2 Episode 16?
Oh black pot of international relations and prosperity, meet the sooted kettle.
Much more important to unilaterally re-write the maps of the 21st century, no?
The uproar over this in certain circles shows me how horrible the state of geography education in the US has become. I distinctly remember being taught and tested on a variety of map projections when I was in middle school.
What is this continent of which you speak? Perhaps you mean planet.
Honestly, I’m surprised he hasn’t renamed Sol. After all, he obviously believes everything revolves around him. (That’s the reason he colors himself like that, to look like the sun.)
Yes, I had read that article, and wondered what kind of idiot penned it. The reason the Mercator projection is used for navigation is that lines of constant bearing are straight. That is being “replaced” by… what?
Different tools for different purposes. Which, of course, was mentioned in the reason for adopting the new map projection, not that anyone with a certain political alighment cared to listen to.
Was that not already the case? Has something actually changed now? I mean, I do not necessarily know my Mollweide from my Hammer–Aitoff, but I assume anyone in the biz does, and moreover I remember reading about recent innovations in uses of custom and creative map projections.
I’m just curious what’s different about this one and the other oval-shaped projections I’m used to. I’ve never seen anyone actually use Mercator to be any sort of accurate map.
So inaccurate it is used by many nations for topographic mapping:
If you are talking about the Equal Earth projection mentioned in the OP, it is not an elliptical projection at all. The northern and southern boundaries are horizontal lines. More generally, what kind of distortion do you like? It is a custom projection someone created by eyeballing it and tweaking various parameters until they liked the result; it is not the result of some fundamental mathematical principle. You can tinker with the exact same software they used:
Different maps are, as mentioned, good for different purposes. Mercator is good for not distorting shapes. That’s actually fairly often useful. The Peters projection, and its various different-aspect-ratio versions (which this map must be) is good for not distorting areas. When is that ever useful?
TBF, that person isn’t wrong, even if they are a mouthpiece of the Trump adminstration.
It is the height of absurdity to even bring such a thing to the UN General Assembly; that’s the sort of thing some bureau of cartography should just do.
And linking it to something PC-related is just dumb. Nobody picked it back in the day because it short-changed Africans; they picked it because it was the best they had at the time, and instiutional inertia and what-not kept it ever since. And it’s equally silly for the African countries to get wound up about it as well- who cares if it makes Greenland look colossal, and Africa look smaller? That really isn’t important when you get right down to it.
Logically, whenever you’re considering how long it takes to get from one place to another, or how separated people are likely to feel or to be in practice (though topography also matters), or how dense overall a particular population level is likely to be.
Less logically, but very much humanly, because human minds tend to think strongly of “larger” as “more important”. You may think it shouldn’t be so, but it is.
Nevertheless I strongly suspect that the current US government’s response is based on the apparent size of the USA in the two versions of the map.
Tosh and nonsense.
What other forum is appropriate?
And apart from the prevailing glass-jaw bully an overwhelming majority from both sides of the ideological aisle backed the project.
So, much in the manner of the flat earthers, originalists and other arcane social intransigencies persisting where better options have long been available?
Maps serve many purposes, ranging from “how to I get from here to there” to “this is how the world IS according to us, and you’d better get used to it.” The point of the Peters Projection and similar maps is to remind people that Europe is not the centre of the world, that the “Global North” sucks up resources 'way out of proportion to its size and population, and however big the US economy and military are, they are not the only game in town.
For those, you’d want a map that preserves distances. No flat map can do that in all cases, but the Peters projection is worse at it than most (including worse than the Mercator).
That’s the point of it, but it’s really bad at accomplishing that point.
Which certainly made navigation a bit less hazardous/more successful back in the day of compass, sextant, lead-line and luck. Does anyone still plan a voyage or flight on the basis of constant bearings [aside from those stalwart folks who sail solo or want to row across an ocean]?
No, but the Mercator projection still has legitimate purposes, because it still has useful properties. Like, consider an online map app: You want it to show undistorted maps at small scales like a single city, and you want north to always be up on the user’s screen, and you want to be able to zoom the map in and out as far as the user wants (until you’ve zoomed out to the whole Earth). If you’re following all three of those constraints, your map must be the Mercator. No other projection is an option.
Exactly. People almost universally treat visuals as representations of reality, whether they are or not. Being shown smaller makes one feel less important. Those who care about this issue have been advocating a change for years. All the other useful maps will remain exactly as useful. The Mercator projection is seldom useful as a world map; overall its net value is less than zero.
It’s easy to find Australian maps in which the top of the map is the South Pole. Perception is a giant factor for feelings.
By Mark Monmonier. He’s written a slew of map and map-related books, including Rhumb Lines and Map Wars: A Social History of the Mercator Projection. I’ve read many. Somewhat hard to find now, but worth it. He’s great.