The world is changing - literally

[wiffleball 4,635]

I read somewhere early this morning that Boston Public Schools are switching their global maps away

from the 'standard' Mercatur map to the Peter's Projection Map.

 

in short, the PPM shows the world much more accurately to what is actually is; The Mercatur map was incredibly '1st world centric'. Europe and America are sized far larger than they are relative to Africa and South America. The PPM is drawn pursuant to relative area size. - Which reveals South America and Africa to be much larger (and therefore relevant) than previously.

 

It makes sense. The other one just plain wasn't accurate.

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS700US700&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mercator+projection+west+wing&*

 

 

[supermike80 1,285]

West wing did this

 

And they flipped northern and southern hemispheres

[naomi 343]

Muy intersante

 

Projections and propoganda

 

 

The Peters projection received a fair amount of criticism. Conservatives charged that it amounted to propaganda, and in fact it was used most often in a deliberate effort to change people’s perceptions of the globe — though, of course, to correct misperceptions created by earlier maps.

 

A more practical problem is that the Peters projection distorts the shape of the continents far more than Mercator, especially near the poles, so that Canada and Russia appear to have been run through a wringer. All cylindrical projections stretch out the regions near the poles; a cylindrical equal-area projection compensates for that not by removing that distortion but by adding a second one. As a result, it isn’t a particularly elegant solution to the problem of accurately portraying the world. It does, however, maintain the familiar (if completely inaccurate) rectangular outline of the Mercator map.

 

Improvements and compromises

There are equal-area projections that don’t as badly distort the shapes of the continents, but they require giving up the rectangular map outline. The Mollweide projection, for example, is frequently used when accurately representing area is more important than describing shape — to show global distribution of populations or goods, for example.

 

 

When you’re reading a map, then, it’s important to be aware of the projection. What aspects of the map are represented accurately, and which are distorted — and are those choices appropriate to what’s being communicated? Remember, just as there is no perfect projection, there aren’t necessarily any bad ones, either — just bad uses of them.

 

Several projections at the link.

[fandandy 3,311]

Interesting. I honestly had no idea.

 

Wouldn't be at all surprised now if upon reading about this Trump proposes UN funding based on land mass.

[Cdub100 3,379]

They can draw Africa as big as they want. It will never be relevant. Europe and America are bigger because we are more important to the rest of world. Hey look Zimbabwe is half the size of America big whoop. It's a sh1t hole and will always be a sh1t hole there for irreverent.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

See, the earf is flat.

[frank 2,144]

Actually, it's the maps that are changing.

 

Well, actually they're just using different old maps.

[bandrus1 413]

They can draw Africa as big as they want. It will never be relevant. Europe and America are bigger because we are more important to the rest of world. Hey look Zimbabwe is half the size of America big ###### whoop. It's a sh1t hole and will always be a sh1t hole there for irreverent.

 

I have to say I like your logic.... id never have to look at another red state on a US map again

[DankNuggs 305]

"Treating Africa as a cultural and political monolith would be absurd and dangerous in an era of increasing globalization."

 

 

My favorite line of Naomi's article. They could have just said it would be wrong and ill informed... but absurd and dangerous!