this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
762 points (98.8% liked)
Mildly Interesting
27833 readers
758 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I dont disagree, but I think if the case was opposite and a useful projection made the countries in power look smaller they wouldn't have picked it as their favourite projection. The distortion is in favour of the (small) powerful countries, which may not have been the main reason but you can't call it a happy coincidence either.
It is a coincidence though, in the sense that the Mercator projection by necessity inflates things near the poles relative to the equator.
The major powers at the time were countries like Britain, Spain, France, and Italy. Not Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, and Canada, which are inflated far more than the former.
The countries in power didn't change much in size, but the countries they controlled did. I stand by my point, if this was the other way around and a useful projections shrank everything near the poles (and Africa looked much bigger on the map than it already is), those people would likely dislike that projection. They would ask themselves why it was so skewed, while now it was no issue. It is a coincidence that Mercator works that way, but it is no coincidence they liked this one so much.
Saying it was just handy is downplaying the strong sides of other projections. Take a look at maps from that period and see how many inaccuracies there are, because they had no satalite to check how right they were. Navigators weren't stupid and they would easily understand how to navigate another projection if Mercator was disregarded for some reason.
Take a look at historic uniforms, the amount of jewelry etc; people have been vain since the beginning of time and have always cared about the looks of it. I honestly can't imagine they would have been fine with a map were they seemed smaller than they actually were, i can easily imagine they would be glad to use a map that showed them bigger then they are.
Sorry, but this is just a strange thing to say. The size of any place on a map can only be measured relative to other places on the map. "The countries in power didn't change much in size" just doesn't make any sense.
At the time when the Mercator projection was invented, we already had plenty of maps that gave a more accurate picture of the size of different land masses. The countries in power were actively colonising a lot of the world, so you better bet they would want to amplify their achievements.
The Mercator projection wasn't "just handy". It was literally the first widely used map projection that lat people sail across open seas and get where they wanted. That's a life/death matter. It's literally an integral part of the power of navigating the world seas.
The fact that it compresses the equator is directly a result of where the magnetic poles of the earth are aligned relative to the geography of the continents.
What I meant with that is that the Mercator projection didn't blow up a country like Spain as much as a country like Norway. I was responding to you, dismissing your claim the change in size is irrelevant because the countries in power weren't close to the poles.
Again, The countries in power didn’t change much in size, but the countries they controlled did. As you point out, the size of a country is only relevant in relation to that of others.
People were sailing open waters long before the Mercator projection. What you're saying just isn't true. We're not going to agree, so i won't waste my time continuing this conversation.
This may or may not be true—in fact I'll just assume that it's true, fuck it—but I will say that it's kind of like being asked to have an opinion on whether this person or that gets top billing on the theater marquee: is it going to be Rose & Krants or Krants & Rose? Which do you think, morally, is the superior option? I really, really don't care.
And it bothers me a smidge that people do only because I feel like they're being distracted by jangling keys. But oh well, whatever. Not my business, I guess.
I, for one, thought Africa had a smaller footprint that it has because of the maps in school and it made me think that it was less signifiant than it is. It doesn't make sense, because a country could be very little but have billions of people in it for example. Nonetheless, I get the feeling. If I was from a country that suffered from colonialism and whatnot, I'd want a better projection of it on 2d maps. Simply because I know a chunk of people would better see my nation's place in the world.
A country's, or a continent's, signifigance has nothing to do with it's size, though.
I mean, if we wanted to make the nations of Africa or Greenland feel better, does it follow that we could make them appear bigger on the map than they actually are? Just move the mercator around such that Africa is along the top or bottom edge of the map where things are larger?
I am absolutely not saying that people having a better understanding of Africa is bad. I just don't think that this is really how that happens.
I remember thinking that Russia seemed pretty big on the map, and yet still, I've never had to take Russian culture as a class in high school.
[edit] I'll add one thing, though. This decision has clearly pissed the US government off, which is based and incredibly funny. I'll support it to that end.
Depends what type of significance. Of course it's more significant when it's larger in size if you value things like farmland, natural resources, fishing, transportation, infrastructure, timezones, language, etc.
If you think the US is similar in size to Africa, like I thought, and you compare the 51 states to the 54 countries, you might think each African country is similar in area to a state in the USA and extrapolate to other beliefs accordingly. Maybe you think there is a greater cultural cohesion in the entire continent because people are closer to each other and so on. Turns out, there is more than 1.5 billion people in Africa. That is way more than in the US, but the size is really skewed in the Mercator.
I don't understand your point about wanting to make Greenland feel better. The Equal Earth Projection is more accurate when looking at land area, so it's not a question of making people feel better about the size of their country, more of a question of not having the Mercator projection contributing to people thinking less of our country, amongst other things, like just being more factual.
And like the other commenter said, Russia doesn't really have this problem anyway, it's very large in all our popular projections.
But these are facts I can learn independently of its, you know, appearance on a map. And outside of this being a notable news story, I don't really see it prompting any such questions.
It is, though. That's actually the only purpose this serves.
I think you might read that as dismissive, but I see some value in making people feel better. Certainly in making the US feel worse.
I don't, however, think that this will meaningfully improve anything.
It's area should still be incorrect, though, yes? Which would mean we have incorrect ideas about its natural resources, its farmland, its cultural cohesion?
Oh yeah, we agree then. It won't do much (but I think the USA voting no is telling on themselves), and yes, the area of Russia is incorrect and we might have the wrong ideas about it. I didn't know it had that much "height" for example.
I do think the fact that the US is the only dissenting voice is incredibly funny.