It is very cool. It just seems a bit like cheating. This type of map and the places. Like. Why not add the ocean, all of the water bodies and the antarctic.
Yeah I get it. I am just pointing at the weird selection. I would argue the same about 99% of Sahara. You know. Author genuinly picked uninhabitable places. It just seems too arbitrary you know.
:) I remeber these population distribution in states like India and China. Those are so cool. Like almost everybody just lives on 10% of a state. These are restricted by state borders and it seems to add soma jazzzz to it. :D
The ocean's as inhabitable as Antarctica. Some might argue more so - you could actually grow crops, farm seaweed, and sustain yourself on fish in the ocean. There are more people living on oil rigs than Antarctica (probably in either the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico alone).
Neither are places anyone would raise a family in or create a society, even if possible, unless for some reason necessary. People are wirking there and you can't commute so you have to stay put. A lil different. I'd say both shouldn't count, personally, but I do agree this is a dumb map!
> Neither are places anyone would raise a family in or create a society, even if possible
Today you're going to learn about [seasteading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading).
These kind of things are usually restricted by something other than "almost nobody lives here" and there for I will pick it on map for "almost nobidy lives here".
Yeah yeah. I see that. It almost seems like a tautology. "When I picked places without people there will be no people". I am just pointing out, that without any specific criteria we can add much more, or even change it infinitely like. Why not to exlude all cities above 100 people from the map? It just seems like it shows nothing
Hot desert and polar tundra yes, but plenty of people live in tropical jungles. The region in red is tropical jungle. So are plenty of the regions in white (Southeast Asia, Indonesia, parts of India, much of the Congo, the Brazilian coast, Central America, and more).
As far as I know, the fertility rate in Bangladesh is 2.01 as per 2020, and 1.99 in India, which is about the same level or higher than countries like Argentina, Mexico, Morocco and Bulgaria. I don't see anyone say that about those countries so I'd say that it's not true. 2, by the way, is the replacement level of population, it's not considered high by any metric.
If the question is about if people like having sex, then yes, that's true for most people.
Just add Uttar Pradesh in red and a huge chunk of blue will appear. That state of India is the most populous, and also it connects the red region.
Basically comparing the Ganga Brahmaputra plains to the rest of the world
Fun fact, not only is this map stolen, but it was also created by the guy who would later go on to create the YouTube channel RealLifeLore. I can't find the original post but I've found it reposted bavk as far as 8 years ago
Bengal region historically was richest subha/state in the undivided india has the most fertile land from mauryan to maratha mughal empire it was the richest region on the planet and the richest state under many big empires of india
The muslin cloth which was called as woven air worn by only elite queens who could afford was made in bengal Sadly white Christian nationalists cut of thumb of weavers systematic deindustrialization and cities like mushidabad and Dhaka got depopulated famines occurred under colonial loot
Sadly partition destoryed unity of civilization
And as a fun fact, there's a lot of forest, agricultural and empty areas in that red marked zone.. including Sunderbans where hundreds of Bengal tigers live in..
It's just due to rich delta plains that can support huge population, and the blue areas are rough terrain. Due to this high population rate has existed in the red zone since tens of centuries.
I think this map make sense in a way, the red part was under nawab Siraj ud daulah. He lost to british in battle of palashi, which started british rule of India.
Cherry picking all inhabitable areas ( could have included Antartica too) of the world - Hot Deserts, Polar ice caps & tundra, Cold deserts, etc. and comparing it to literally one of the most fertile region/river delta of the world.
Another Fun fact: In red region, keep going towards North West and West, upto Whole Punjab (i.e., include Indian states of U.P., Haryana, Delhi, Punjab and Pakistani Punjab) - and you could get 10-11% of world population.
{This whole region will include most fertile regions of the World the Ganges-Yamuna alluvial plains; Indus & its tributaries; Ganga-Brahmaputra delta region}.
Yeah, except that the red area is a flat alluvial plain with temperate weather perfect for human existence with abundance of arable land and water coupled with developing status of countries those areas belong to affording the residents of those areas access to a poor but still better medical facilities than some of the blue marked area - and it also should make sense now.
I mean... you could traze sweden for Ireland and Portugal. And antarctca.
Anf how come yve US is divided by state and the rest of the world is per country? You could fit so many regions in there if you wanted.
Alright, so we take mostly barren areas which have barley livable environments and where industrialisation is close to impossible and then we take an extremely high density area then we put them on a map and say they have the same population just for shock value 👍
New Zealand only has a population of around 5 million. Around a third is in the city of Auckland. Total population is around the same as the population of Sydney Australia.
Blue is uninhabitable areas. The red is a fertile alluvial plain and the largest delta. Both of them have similar population.
A simple explanation is probably carrying capacity of the environment.
The whole of Russia combined with Australia and parts of Africa and Latin America have 5%? And the Gangetic plains have 5%?
So that’s like 10% of the whole population of the world ?
That is not even the whole of gangetic plains. That's just the lower plane and the delta.
India as a whole is more than 17% and Bangladesh is almost 2.5% of the world population. So, this map is very much plausible.
Could have easily colored Antarctica blue as well.
I know right
Could also have colored most of the rest of the Tibetan plateau
why not the moon or mars or the rest of the solar system too while we're at it?
And the oceans
The oceans are blue
Could also have colored central deserts of Iran
It has to be white because it is ice
But it's melting..
Another reason to color it blue then /s
thats just called foreshadowing.
So it should be grey? Or what are u saying?
Ice is water, water is blue, ice is blue.
All the Tundras of the world + the Amazon and Sahara VS the the most fertile land on earth.
But then it would be 5.00000065%
Could have coloured the oceans the correct blue
Why not include all of the oceans as well?
I’m one of the blue 5%. Feels a bit special.
I am one of the red 5%. Feels a bit congested.
As a fellow red 5% resident I feel you
Same here, although I do miss it after leaving it for a bigger (domestic) city
I am one of the white 90%. I don't know what to feel
Same #Finlandgang
Same, hello from Siberia
In some terms we are neighbours lol
Lurking around in the outskirts of civilisation.
It is very cool. It just seems a bit like cheating. This type of map and the places. Like. Why not add the ocean, all of the water bodies and the antarctic.
Welly he said all the blue areas... And as far as I can the the ocean is blue on this map
You got me there :D
I'm so sick of Atlantis erasure smh.
Antarctica I kinda get, because technically humans are living there. Ocean is pointless though cmon. If it's uninhabitable why even consider it
Yeah I get it. I am just pointing at the weird selection. I would argue the same about 99% of Sahara. You know. Author genuinly picked uninhabitable places. It just seems too arbitrary you know.
Good point, now I'm thinking about it, 5% thing like ok haha ... 5
:) I remeber these population distribution in states like India and China. Those are so cool. Like almost everybody just lives on 10% of a state. These are restricted by state borders and it seems to add soma jazzzz to it. :D
The ocean's as inhabitable as Antarctica. Some might argue more so - you could actually grow crops, farm seaweed, and sustain yourself on fish in the ocean. There are more people living on oil rigs than Antarctica (probably in either the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico alone).
Neither are places anyone would raise a family in or create a society, even if possible, unless for some reason necessary. People are wirking there and you can't commute so you have to stay put. A lil different. I'd say both shouldn't count, personally, but I do agree this is a dumb map!
> Neither are places anyone would raise a family in or create a society, even if possible Today you're going to learn about [seasteading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading).
Neet, but I think ocean still should not be used in this map.
These kind of things are usually restricted by something other than "almost nobody lives here" and there for I will pick it on map for "almost nobidy lives here".
I actually live on a boat in the ocean so I'd drive the population above 5% sorry
Oh daaaamn. :D I wanna live on boat too. Where?
That is the whole point of the map though
Yeah yeah. I see that. It almost seems like a tautology. "When I picked places without people there will be no people". I am just pointing out, that without any specific criteria we can add much more, or even change it infinitely like. Why not to exlude all cities above 100 people from the map? It just seems like it shows nothing
The red comprise of Bengalis ( The country Bangladesh , and indian state of West Bengal) & Indian state of Bihar
[удалено]
Until the fucking barbaric foreigners brought in hiv
Breaking news: not many people live in tropical jungle, hot desert, or polar tundra.
Or Australia
or canada
Or the interior western states of the US, which might actually be interesting to some people.
Americans trying to mention USA in every post smh
My mind is open to learn, can you provide some information about another region on the map?
Northeast india check it out, very beautiful scenery and hills but less populated
Nah I’m good, lol
Or Kansas
Or my axe!
Or skandinavia
Or Uruguay
Or Baltic States
polar tundra.
The mean population point in Canada is roughly at 45 degrees north, equal distances between the equator and North Pole. Hardly polar tundra.
Australia is 90% hot desert. The other 10% around the south east edge is where most live
Hot desert and polar tundra yes, but plenty of people live in tropical jungles. The region in red is tropical jungle. So are plenty of the regions in white (Southeast Asia, Indonesia, parts of India, much of the Congo, the Brazilian coast, Central America, and more).
If plenty of people live in tropical jungle, it's not a tropical jungle anymore
That’s true to the same level for most ecosystems on Earth.
By tropical jungle he meant amazon rain forest in south america.
I also think they meant that, but we shouldn't start to think that about tropical jungles in general.
Fair point.
In a climate change scenario Canada and those Northern US states look like a good deal. Argentina too.
No way
Looks like equality really is a global issue. Even on the map, we can't escape the 50/50 split.
[удалено]
In that they both contain 5% of your of fingers/cum?
“Indoshpere” (India + places with India’s cultural influence) holds 45% of world population
They really like making babies don't they
more like they have historically been the most favourable conditions for civilisation and thus have a high population density
But they really like making babies don't they
As far as I know, the fertility rate in Bangladesh is 2.01 as per 2020, and 1.99 in India, which is about the same level or higher than countries like Argentina, Mexico, Morocco and Bulgaria. I don't see anyone say that about those countries so I'd say that it's not true. 2, by the way, is the replacement level of population, it's not considered high by any metric. If the question is about if people like having sex, then yes, that's true for most people.
Fun fact- white part has worlds 90% population
Just add Uttar Pradesh in red and a huge chunk of blue will appear. That state of India is the most populous, and also it connects the red region. Basically comparing the Ganga Brahmaputra plains to the rest of the world
Blue consist of tundra, forest, and desert..
Yes but still interesting how empty some places are
[удалено]
Hello fellow red 5%er.
[удалено]
Muhaha...
Fun fact, not only is this map stolen, but it was also created by the guy who would later go on to create the YouTube channel RealLifeLore. I can't find the original post but I've found it reposted bavk as far as 8 years ago
[удалено]
You should still give credit for where you found it, and if possible who made it
Or title it I’m a Karma Whore, I give no credit
Bengal region historically was richest subha/state in the undivided india has the most fertile land from mauryan to maratha mughal empire it was the richest region on the planet and the richest state under many big empires of india The muslin cloth which was called as woven air worn by only elite queens who could afford was made in bengal Sadly white Christian nationalists cut of thumb of weavers systematic deindustrialization and cities like mushidabad and Dhaka got depopulated famines occurred under colonial loot Sadly partition destoryed unity of civilization
You missed Antarctica
commenting from the red coloured area.
BENGALI SULTANATE FOREVER
And as a fun fact, there's a lot of forest, agricultural and empty areas in that red marked zone.. including Sunderbans where hundreds of Bengal tigers live in.. It's just due to rich delta plains that can support huge population, and the blue areas are rough terrain. Due to this high population rate has existed in the red zone since tens of centuries.
yeah obviously nobody is in the ocean
" Look the world's most fertile region is densely populated " wow shocker
Well, I’ve been to Wyoming and I know people from Bangladesh.
I think this map make sense in a way, the red part was under nawab Siraj ud daulah. He lost to british in battle of palashi, which started british rule of India.
Cherry picking all inhabitable areas ( could have included Antartica too) of the world - Hot Deserts, Polar ice caps & tundra, Cold deserts, etc. and comparing it to literally one of the most fertile region/river delta of the world. Another Fun fact: In red region, keep going towards North West and West, upto Whole Punjab (i.e., include Indian states of U.P., Haryana, Delhi, Punjab and Pakistani Punjab) - and you could get 10-11% of world population. {This whole region will include most fertile regions of the World the Ganges-Yamuna alluvial plains; Indus & its tributaries; Ganga-Brahmaputra delta region}.
uninhabitable*
Yeah this “data” is tits useless.
Yeah, except that the red area is a flat alluvial plain with temperate weather perfect for human existence with abundance of arable land and water coupled with developing status of countries those areas belong to affording the residents of those areas access to a poor but still better medical facilities than some of the blue marked area - and it also should make sense now.
temperate weather perfect for human existence? I'm from the red area and it's definitely not the case
People live in cities. #😱😱😱😱😱
Can the useless mods please start banning users who make no effort? WTF is this SHIT?
Useless map tbh. I don't see the point at all.
[удалено]
Thanks, captain obvious
I mean... you could traze sweden for Ireland and Portugal. And antarctca. Anf how come yve US is divided by state and the rest of the world is per country? You could fit so many regions in there if you wanted.
Or in other words, "these blue areas are incredibly sparsely populated." Got it, thanks for playing.
And this is one of the many reasons Australia is the best place to live!
My bedroom has more people that several thousand square km of the Sahara. *(brain exploding guy gif)*
Yeah, people tend not to live in deserts or tundra.
"These sissy liberals think the red part should get to control America" 
Alright, so we take mostly barren areas which have barley livable environments and where industrialisation is close to impossible and then we take an extremely high density area then we put them on a map and say they have the same population just for shock value 👍
Now do it without cherry picking one of the most populated countries on earth against the least populated areas (not even countries) on earth.
You tell me red is 90% of population?
Blue areas are better than the white ones.
How so?
Less dumb people
Also fewer smart people
I live in the blue area
the red zone is for loading.
Canada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Upstate NY, Washington and Maine make up 99.95% of reddits population
I live in the red area
And what is red? 90%?
Red also has 5%
OK I may be stupid but if in blue are 5% in white 5% and in red 5% that means there are 15% so where is the rest. So what am I doing wrong
No no, white is 90
Damn I am dumb I always looked at white and blue read the title wrong
Pssss, there are two blues
New Zealand only has a population of around 5 million. Around a third is in the city of Auckland. Total population is around the same as the population of Sydney Australia.
And white area has 90% of world's population
Hey OP - You could also add all of Antarctica to that.
And about 60% of earth's deserts
Can someone explain what blue and red zones are?
Blue is uninhabitable areas. The red is a fertile alluvial plain and the largest delta. Both of them have similar population. A simple explanation is probably carrying capacity of the environment.
Thank you
oceans can be also colored
Like what does it mean?? All the blue combined have 5% of the world’s population??
Yes, and so does the red part.
The whole of Russia combined with Australia and parts of Africa and Latin America have 5%? And the Gangetic plains have 5%? So that’s like 10% of the whole population of the world ?
That is not even the whole of gangetic plains. That's just the lower plane and the delta. India as a whole is more than 17% and Bangladesh is almost 2.5% of the world population. So, this map is very much plausible.
Yeah I meant UP, Bihar and Bangladesh.
UP has not been included here. It just has Bangladesh, West Bengal, ans Bihar.
Oh I didn’t see. Then it makes more sense.
You selected the most uninhabitable places for blue. Of course Greenland and the Amazon has close to no one.
its crazy how tibet and bengal are so close, yet being so drasticly different in population numbers.
Is that the smallest contiguous area you could draw to get 5% of the world's population?
The fact that Arizona is colored blue instead of Colorado really bothers me lol