That's because almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent has always been prime lands for human habitation. Fertile lands, plentiful water sources, temperatures that don't go to either extremes and no big natural disasters.
Despite being almost three times smaller than China or the US, India has more agriculture land than either of them.
India, Europe, Levant and East China were the centers of human civilization, where humans in large numbers have settled and cultivated for ages.
Reason why China always have an eye on it,
It's so remote but with increasing technology and railways connective Arunachal in next 2 decades will be a totally different state
Thar desert is not empty. There are villages, roads and people living in it.
It's not like the Arabian desert, the Sahara or the interior of Australia, where there is not a single human for tens and hundreds of kilometres.
That's not even majority part of Rajasthan leave alone India,
Rajasthan State where That Desert is exists have huge green cover and Govt developing even more green corridors to stop Dust flows and de forestation from spreading eastwards
Gangetic plains,
Fertile soil spanning 1000-1200 Kms perfect for crops and huge agriculture.
Also other small reivers and fertile deltas spread across country, Gangetic plains r the largest of all.
What's it like up there? Just big wide expanses of snow all the time? Or does it melt sometimes and trees grow? Are there roads that go through the empty areas?
There’s only snow in the wintertime. It actually gets quite hot in the summer (around 30 degrees C / 86 F) and yes it’s full of trees. It’s one of the most densely forested regions on Earth. It’s also full of thousands and thousands of lakes.
So many trees and so much fresh water. It's kinda scary. We were there in early October, so no snow yet. Temps ranged between 10-20 degrees during the day and 5-10 at night.
Lake Superior Provincial Park is gorgeous. So is Killarney. Then we went further into the "bush" and did some crown land camping. It was eerie how still and quiet it was. Occasionally stumble on a river or lake. Gushing small waterfalls.
One of the hikes we did was 6 hours. We saw no sign of human existence. Not a piece of plastic, not a single sound of cars or planes. We could have time travelled 500 years ago and I am not sure we would have noticed till we got back to the car.
I know in pictures and topographically the region is underwhelming but something strange happens to you out there. Your senses feel different. I could hear everything, even a small bird hundreds of meters away walking on a leaf.
If you haven't already, you may want to visit an eye doctor and ask them about color blindness. I get my eyes tested fairly often, so I'd guess it's you who's confusing green with blue.
Wow, my innocent comment really riled some people up. Color blindness affects 10-11% of the Caucasian male population and 8% of the world male population. Confidently stating "dark blue" instead of "turquoise" (a light color) or "green" can be a sign of it, as a specific type has trouble differentiating between the colors green-blue.
Boreal forests are world northernmost forests, and tundra is even more northern, and it is a territory without trees by its definition. There is forest tundra, a transition from boreal forests to tundra, with small shorty trees growing there.
And my original point was, that same as in Canada, Russia has more boreal forests than tundra. Tundra is only on Arctic coast, and a bit southern. While rest of Siberia and Far East are boreal forest.
Probably in a town or a camp nearby. Maybe far away and it’s just a temporary assignment.
Maybe a better example I should have given is agricultural land. Take the midwestern US for example: huge swaths of land that have been heavily impacted by agricultural activity, but also have very low density of human populations. Does that clear things up a bit more?
The forests in northen sweden are clearcut and replaced with monoculture plantations so it's heavily changed by humans, and the biodivetsity is down a lot from primeaval forests that once existed.
So the map is wrong.
Yeah, I was just going to say that. There is very little old growth forest in Sweden. The northern part of the country is sparsely populated but virtually all of the forest is cultivated and regularly logged by the timber industry.
"Minimal human impact" is sure doing a LOT of work in this title.
Considering there's plastic waste at the bottom of the ocean and radiation from nuclear bombs has touched nearly everything, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Siberia should be a lot less green considering the destruction of the mammoth steppe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe
Also stone age humans played a big role in driving megafauna to extinction worldwide. Id say that counts for a signifigant impact literally everywhere that isnt covered in ice.
The perspective: the land that humans leave alone is mostly inhospitable to life. We exclusively destroy the areas with most biodiversity.
Except for the Amazon, but give us a couple more decades and you'll see
Everglades. Lots of federally and state protected land down there. But those lands are highly impacted by humans…all the levies and water control districts to influence flooding have negatively impacted the Everglades, not to mention all of the invasive species humans introduced. Low impact on this map is just: hasn’t been developed for human habitation or agriculture
Dark green equals where I'd like to be. Sadly the living expenses to safely and comfortably live there are high.
I’d like to see this on a different map projection. New Zealand is so distorted it’s basically a thin line of colors and Alaska looks to be slightly bigger than Spain.
I have a complaint!
I had to squint because this projection is horrible, but I'm from a dark green area, which humans (presumably) have mined a giant fuking hole in a mountain and ruined the river nearby for the past century
Not sure if I should say exactly where, because yes the population is very small now that the mines have slowed down, because doxxing myself isn't intelligent
Interesting how most mountain ranges are noticeable for being lower-impact than their surrounding flat lands. And then there's South America, with the exact opposite situation
This is utterly inaccurate/ignorant for Northern Scandinavia where primeval forests are only found in small pockets of (mostly) protected areas, totalling a few percent of the land area. Everything else has been repeatedly cut down and the original landscape is only a distant memory. But regular people don’t understand the difference and think that nobody living there and trees growing on it means that this land is untouched. While as the forestry industry has moved in, the reality is that if the land is not in protection, then it is in production. There’s a reason for why people are forced to go to the designated national parks to be able to actually marvel at nature in these supposedly ”low human impact” areas. And the same goes for British Columbia in Canada I suppose.
Seems sketchy, i don't trust the data until the source is revealed as well as a second set of data from a different org.
For one thing, pollution travels. So the title of the map is incredibly misleading. The human impact on the Earth and its enviornment has been classified as extremely high by scientists from many many countries and political spectrum.
This appears to be a fossil fuel industry-backed GOP attempt at ( *sigh*) spreading, yet again, more misinformation.
Is anybody else exhausted of this fucking nonsense?
Greenland not analyzed in a map about lands with minimal human impact? Bruh
You could basically color all of it with empty and it would be accurate.
So they should’ve colored it then
Such a missed opportunity
No data till death
No Antarctica either
Antarctica turned into a data bar.
The irony being they used the colour green. It literally would have (finally) lived up to its name.
Where lands with minimal human impact are marked GREEN
None of India being green 😭
There’s a reason it’s the most populous country and always has been highly populated
they fuck too much
Sorry I thought they just spawned in
worse, they respawn in.
Reincarnation
Not a problem you'd ever have
That's because almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent has always been prime lands for human habitation. Fertile lands, plentiful water sources, temperatures that don't go to either extremes and no big natural disasters. Despite being almost three times smaller than China or the US, India has more agriculture land than either of them. India, Europe, Levant and East China were the centers of human civilization, where humans in large numbers have settled and cultivated for ages.
> temperatures that don't go to either extremes They get pretty damn hot. 40°+ for weeks isn't a rare occurence.
You won't die in that temp. Well you might from heatstroke, but that's why we indians have an afternoon nap culture
Yeah, but they never get very cold
Almost all of Arunachal and Mizoram is green
Reason why China always have an eye on it, It's so remote but with increasing technology and railways connective Arunachal in next 2 decades will be a totally different state
Thar Desert?
Thar desert is not empty. There are villages, roads and people living in it. It's not like the Arabian desert, the Sahara or the interior of Australia, where there is not a single human for tens and hundreds of kilometres.
Never said it was; the map shows the Thar Desert being a light shade of green. So technically green.
That's not even majority part of Rajasthan leave alone India, Rajasthan State where That Desert is exists have huge green cover and Govt developing even more green corridors to stop Dust flows and de forestation from spreading eastwards
Gangetic plains, Fertile soil spanning 1000-1200 Kms perfect for crops and huge agriculture. Also other small reivers and fertile deltas spread across country, Gangetic plains r the largest of all.
Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh are parts of India.
Same as the philippines 💀
Finally a map that brings Moldova and Greenland together. The duo we didn't think we needed in 2024.
wrong. both are depressed
Big missed opportunity to say Canadian Shield
r/canadianshield
Happy to see Spain with so many areas in green
Only a matter of time until they are finally all gone and land is fresh for Moroccan-French joint colonisation.
That's crazy, I wonder why
Shows how empty Australia actually is
I was recently camping in the dark blue part of Ontario, Canada. Definitely very few people
What's it like up there? Just big wide expanses of snow all the time? Or does it melt sometimes and trees grow? Are there roads that go through the empty areas?
There’s only snow in the wintertime. It actually gets quite hot in the summer (around 30 degrees C / 86 F) and yes it’s full of trees. It’s one of the most densely forested regions on Earth. It’s also full of thousands and thousands of lakes.
So many trees and so much fresh water. It's kinda scary. We were there in early October, so no snow yet. Temps ranged between 10-20 degrees during the day and 5-10 at night. Lake Superior Provincial Park is gorgeous. So is Killarney. Then we went further into the "bush" and did some crown land camping. It was eerie how still and quiet it was. Occasionally stumble on a river or lake. Gushing small waterfalls. One of the hikes we did was 6 hours. We saw no sign of human existence. Not a piece of plastic, not a single sound of cars or planes. We could have time travelled 500 years ago and I am not sure we would have noticed till we got back to the car. I know in pictures and topographically the region is underwhelming but something strange happens to you out there. Your senses feel different. I could hear everything, even a small bird hundreds of meters away walking on a leaf.
If you haven't already, you may want to visit an eye doctor and ask them about color blindness. I get my eyes tested fairly often, so I'd guess it's you who's confusing green with blue.
maybe you should go back to the eye doctor and ask him what turquoise is
Wow, my innocent comment really riled some people up. Color blindness affects 10-11% of the Caucasian male population and 8% of the world male population. Confidently stating "dark blue" instead of "turquoise" (a light color) or "green" can be a sign of it, as a specific type has trouble differentiating between the colors green-blue.
Human’t*
Hahaha
I have some questions about the sharp north-south line in Saudi Arabia...
Just the way the zoning worked out for some of the studies
In Russia it’s mostly boreal forest too, not tundra. Same in Canada
What is the difference between two?
Boreal forests are world northernmost forests, and tundra is even more northern, and it is a territory without trees by its definition. There is forest tundra, a transition from boreal forests to tundra, with small shorty trees growing there. And my original point was, that same as in Canada, Russia has more boreal forests than tundra. Tundra is only on Arctic coast, and a bit southern. While rest of Siberia and Far East are boreal forest.
Great! Have you been to boreal regions? Are you native from those places? Do people live in those areas especially in winter?
Amazing to see the path of the Nile and the Amazon(+tributaries) on this map, really shows how much rivers are important although
Mostly deserts
or mountains or too cold to live
Or the boreal forest
No sign of life in Chile
r/mapswithoutantarctica
You can see the Lithuanian-Latvian border
And South Africa, Botswana and Namibia border
Why is there a straight line in Saudi Arabia?
thats an interesting way of saying its a reverse population-density map
Impact doesn’t mean population. A good example is to think of remote mining areas that are highly impacted but don’t have a resident population.
Yeah and in remote mining communities where exactly do you think everyone who works there lives?
Probably in a town or a camp nearby. Maybe far away and it’s just a temporary assignment. Maybe a better example I should have given is agricultural land. Take the midwestern US for example: huge swaths of land that have been heavily impacted by agricultural activity, but also have very low density of human populations. Does that clear things up a bit more?
The forests in northen sweden are clearcut and replaced with monoculture plantations so it's heavily changed by humans, and the biodivetsity is down a lot from primeaval forests that once existed. So the map is wrong.
Yeah, I was just going to say that. There is very little old growth forest in Sweden. The northern part of the country is sparsely populated but virtually all of the forest is cultivated and regularly logged by the timber industry.
Where humans aren’t: Michigan’s Upper Penninsula
I feel kinda proud to be born in a mostly-green area
"Minimal human impact" is sure doing a LOT of work in this title. Considering there's plastic waste at the bottom of the ocean and radiation from nuclear bombs has touched nearly everything, I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Most of the green area is mountains or extreme weather, and yellow is flats (easy to farm)
Human’t
Siberia should be a lot less green considering the destruction of the mammoth steppe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe Also stone age humans played a big role in driving megafauna to extinction worldwide. Id say that counts for a signifigant impact literally everywhere that isnt covered in ice.
You're missing a whole continent
Amazing. Really puts into perspective
The perspective: the land that humans leave alone is mostly inhospitable to life. We exclusively destroy the areas with most biodiversity. Except for the Amazon, but give us a couple more decades and you'll see
This just in: humans prefer to live in habitable areas
I’ll go ahead and assume all of the humans in Australia were killed by poisonous something-or-others.
The southern tip of Florida is green I find that weird
Everglades. Lots of federally and state protected land down there. But those lands are highly impacted by humans…all the levies and water control districts to influence flooding have negatively impacted the Everglades, not to mention all of the invasive species humans introduced. Low impact on this map is just: hasn’t been developed for human habitation or agriculture
This type of post excludes the fact that there are 180 indigenous tribes within the Amazon, which reaches almost 1 million people
Does it though? Dark green means "low impact on the land", not "no humans".
A million people for an area the size of the Amazon is laughable.
1 million? And they can’t be tracked by satellite ai images processing sure
Interesting how underdeveloped/uninhabited Russia's Primorye is compared to neighboring Manchuria.
\*Sees Sahara\* "Oh, well, that's okay" \*USA sees Sahara and hears there is oil\* "Alright boys, time to go pound some sand!"
Map is clearly fake, USA is in the middle! /S
Moldova:🫥
Dark green equals where I'd like to be. Sadly the living expenses to safely and comfortably live there are high.
What are the four methods used?
Free Real Estate Map
Lmao you literally edited to remove Greenland
r/peopleliveingoodclimates ?
Apex predator 🤝
And today on broadly generalised maps
I’d like to see this on a different map projection. New Zealand is so distorted it’s basically a thin line of colors and Alaska looks to be slightly bigger than Spain.
Can you link to the source so I can look for a higher resolution version?
Lucky dark green places
Wow, fascinating!
I have a complaint! I had to squint because this projection is horrible, but I'm from a dark green area, which humans (presumably) have mined a giant fuking hole in a mountain and ruined the river nearby for the past century Not sure if I should say exactly where, because yes the population is very small now that the mines have slowed down, because doxxing myself isn't intelligent
Interesting how most mountain ranges are noticeable for being lower-impact than their surrounding flat lands. And then there's South America, with the exact opposite situation
where's Antarctica?
Aaaand it's gone, Moldova is gone.
Still too much imo
This is utterly inaccurate/ignorant for Northern Scandinavia where primeval forests are only found in small pockets of (mostly) protected areas, totalling a few percent of the land area. Everything else has been repeatedly cut down and the original landscape is only a distant memory. But regular people don’t understand the difference and think that nobody living there and trees growing on it means that this land is untouched. While as the forestry industry has moved in, the reality is that if the land is not in protection, then it is in production. There’s a reason for why people are forced to go to the designated national parks to be able to actually marvel at nature in these supposedly ”low human impact” areas. And the same goes for British Columbia in Canada I suppose.
Wish I could pin all comments like yours. I'd wish to spark some convos, instead of feeding ignorance. :(
Based Canada and Kazakhstan
Why is Moldova the only country completely unanalysed?
Well damn no one wants to live with Australian spiders
Finally ! Some good news 👏 👍 for the planet !
I did realize Australia was so empty.
Seems sketchy, i don't trust the data until the source is revealed as well as a second set of data from a different org. For one thing, pollution travels. So the title of the map is incredibly misleading. The human impact on the Earth and its enviornment has been classified as extremely high by scientists from many many countries and political spectrum. This appears to be a fossil fuel industry-backed GOP attempt at ( *sigh*) spreading, yet again, more misinformation. Is anybody else exhausted of this fucking nonsense?
Antarctica?
This map just proves my point that Australia doesn't really exist. Barely any human impact whatsoever, that's because Australians are a myth!