For this specific purpose it probably does make sense to consider Russia part of Europe. If we go by the common Europe-Asia dividing line of the Ural mountains then a large majority of Russia's population is in the European half, so most Russian births are probably in the European bit
The weird thing about the Americas to me is that only Mexico, the US, and Canada are counted. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that draws a dividing line between North and South America do so anywhere except at the Darien Gap, nor have I seen anyone put all of the Caribbean islands in South America. Iberoamerica or similar cultural region terms, sure, but South America the continent?
As I understand it, Russia actually tends to reject the notion of a separate Europe and Asia. They prefer a six-continent model with Eurasia as one thing
Well yes, it is entirely arbitrary. One of the most agreed-upon factors is that "at least as big as Australia" is a requirement, but there's no hard reason for that requirement
Personally I think we should consider particarly big mountain ranges and deserts as continental boundaries more often, like we do with the Urals in nodels that separate Asia and Europe. "Asia" is such a huge concept as to be almost useless, and it's not like China and Arabia had much influence on each other historically
and i would argue there are way more, because grouping all of africa and europe and asia together is kind of utterly pointless.
What makes sense to me is groupings very much like europe in size and cultural cohesion, something roughly like this:
(I can't intuitively figure out where to draw lines in america, aside from the fact that the northern part of the landmass is basically unpopulated and vastly more similar to greenland than it is to the populated parts)
One could say the map simply counted transcontinental countries as where the majority of the population lives, but French Guiana isn't colored like Europe.
Also interesting that the southern border of Mexico is apparently the border between North and South America.
They not only screwed up their continent borders, but they forgot the continent of Antarctica. There are tons of researchers who spend months (maybe years?) living there while working. It's extremely low, but there's a non-zero chance someone could be born there.
Looks like there have officially only ever been 11 Antarctic births, and none since 1985. While you're right that it's likely non-zero, it's also probably zero.
I hear that India is getting better but lots of it is pretty shit.
Large parts of Africa are similarly underdeveloped.
Why are birth rates so high in these regions and not in more developed areas?
Like. I understand the thesis that things are pretty shit so why have kids that prevails in more developed nations - but why does that not hold true in less developed ones? Where things are arguably more shit?
Why are birth rates so high in these regions and not in more developed areas?
Development is exactly what makes birth rates go down. People also used to have more kids in developed countries in the past, and it went down the more the countries' development indicators went up.
The reason? It's not simple, there are entire theses over the subject and, likely, different causes, but roughly, it's lower education levels, more religious influence, less women rights, criminality, etc. For many people in poorer places, having kids is not an option at all. It "just happens." Actually choosing to have kids is something very recent historically and far from something universal.
If you can figure out the answer to this question, you deserve a Nobel prize.
Every country on earth seems to be seeing the same phenomenon: the more developed and comfortable life in your country gets, the more your birthrate tanks. There are lots of theories, but nobody seems to have a good explanation or know what to do about it.
because "developed nations" are filled with self-indulgent narcissistic selfish people who would understandably spend their resources, all that time and energy, for something more enjoyable than trying to breed some more self-indulgent narcissistic selfish 💩
The answer is that those regions are lesser educated and are less likely to know about or use contraceptives. Another is that many of those families hope to obtain cheap child labour in their farms and other itinerary trade. This is why the excessive birth problem is particularly pronounced in the more underdeveloped parts of these countries and not the middle to high class areas.
There are a wide variety of reasons that can be explored and discussed but the way you've framed the question suggests such a narrow worldview that one feels it would be a wasted effort.
I suppose this is the sort of map fear-fomenting rightwing racists would use to support their arguments about white replacement theory. It would be pretty effective. Sigh.
I would just like to point out that e.g. according to buddhist belief, where/how you are reborn depends on what you helped to create in your previous life.
this is to be understood both biologically and psychologically. i.e. when you hurt someone, like your neighbor, chances are high that you're going to experience the same action done to you in your next life, but also if you help somebody ofc.
so the chance of being reborn in africa if you live in the US today are ... low, i'd say.
How many of those countries have been subject to neocolonialism and CIA coups? Lots of people support politicians who want to continue stealing from and exploiting countries in Africa and elsewhere, so by that logic it seems to me that the chances are pretty high, actually.
I don't think enough people are being born in Palestine to accommodate all the American souls who karmically ought to be reborn there.
It sounds like you're internally associating Africa and the US with opposite "goodness" evaluations, but you never explain which way and I have no idea why you think your conclusion makes sense.
“On each continent” it doesn’t necessarily say that if you were to fall outside of a percentage that you automatically are born on a different continent.
Damn, Ukraine really went crazy with its 2026 counteroffensive.
From the Sea to the Sea to the Sea to the Sea to the Sea
"Wait, it's all Ukraine?"
"Always has been."
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Slava Ukraini Intensifies
Angry Albanian Noises
Inclusive ports representing all water temperatures.
I was already born, so my chances of being born elsewhere are actually much lower, I think
Someone doesn't know about the great rebirth of 2026.
Is this caused by the covid vaccine?
It's the next logical step after so many Raptures, ya know? 🤷🏼♂️
Death is on the rise, as is India's GDP. So don't rule out reincarnation.
That's an odd way to divide it up. Without Mexico, the US would be much, much lower. Every continent map shows Russia as part of Asia.
For this specific purpose it probably does make sense to consider Russia part of Europe. If we go by the common Europe-Asia dividing line of the Ural mountains then a large majority of Russia's population is in the European half, so most Russian births are probably in the European bit
The weird thing about the Americas to me is that only Mexico, the US, and Canada are counted. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that draws a dividing line between North and South America do so anywhere except at the Darien Gap, nor have I seen anyone put all of the Caribbean islands in South America. Iberoamerica or similar cultural region terms, sure, but South America the continent?
It's a very mixed bag on this map, since it was labeled "continent" but they separated Russia.
Well, the person that made this is making russia very happy that they they are now European, lol.
As I understand it, Russia actually tends to reject the notion of a separate Europe and Asia. They prefer a six-continent model with Eurasia as one thing
I prefer to be a billionaire, but it's not how it is.
Maybe, as the capital of russia is in Europe, russia is counted as Europe, while Turkey is counted to Asia, as its capital is in its Asian part.
So every continent map is wrong?
Yes. Continent is a dubious cultural term, not geographical. See map men's genial video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsxRJdwfM0
Or CPG Grey's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34
Well, yeah. The definition of "continent" is arbitrary.
I could argue that there are only four, for instance (America, Afro-Eurasia, Antarctica, and Australia).
And then at that rate, Greenland could be counted, or Australia and Antarctica left out.
Well yes, it is entirely arbitrary. One of the most agreed-upon factors is that "at least as big as Australia" is a requirement, but there's no hard reason for that requirement
Personally I think we should consider particarly big mountain ranges and deserts as continental boundaries more often, like we do with the Urals in nodels that separate Asia and Europe. "Asia" is such a huge concept as to be almost useless, and it's not like China and Arabia had much influence on each other historically
You do have "regions" already kind of filling that niche. MENA, Europe, Central Asia, East Asia and so on.
We just need better branding for them! Middle East and North Africa doesn’t roll off the tongue nearly as well as just Africa
and i would argue there are way more, because grouping all of africa and europe and asia together is kind of utterly pointless.
What makes sense to me is groupings very much like europe in size and cultural cohesion, something roughly like this:
(I can't intuitively figure out where to draw lines in america, aside from the fact that the northern part of the landmass is basically unpopulated and vastly more similar to greenland than it is to the populated parts)
Siberia is not part of Europe you weirdos.
One could say the map simply counted transcontinental countries as where the majority of the population lives, but French Guiana isn't colored like Europe.
Also interesting that the southern border of Mexico is apparently the border between North and South America.
Yeah the most interesting thing about this map is the weird biases on display.
Personal guess?
This was made by a white supremacist to try and push replacement theory/14 words type fears without tipping off the normies
It's part of Afroeurasiaca
I'm sure the massive number of people being born in Siberia makes this map completely useless /s
I choose to not be born in 2026
Brave
Looks at Australia
Can I haz data source and computation approach pleaze?
Isn't it birth rate times population (normalized to world total births)? Then you draw the borders where you want...
I think PNG is usually considered a part of Oceania and Indonesia a part of Asia, which is why it stands out. What borders are not intact?
For any parents trying to find their new baby, starting the search in Asia seems like a good strategy! Book a flight immediately after birth.
I'd immagine it being 0% across the world, it is still 2025...
Babies gestate for 9 months.
Amateurs. I did it in 8.
Now do “chance of dying of any cause under the age of 20” per continent.
so you want an industrialization index?
Of course the europe-asia border is wrong, but the south america -north america border is wrong as well. It should be where Panama is.
I see a lot of US Americans think that north America only has 3 countries. That's false.
Trump's delusions about Greenland seem to be contagious to whoever color-coded this map.
Three countries is what I was taught in school in the 80s and 90s. And that the Americas are 3 continents; North, Central, and South America.
What was the reasoning back then for singling out central America?
Wait when was Russia part of Europe.
since 80% of its population was in the european side
Ive been lied to my whole life!
Western part is in Europe, east of the Caucasus mountains is Asia. Map is slightly ehh in that regard.
I think you might be confusing the Ural Mountains with the Caucasus Mountains?
Russia west of the Ural mountains is Europe, east is Asia. But the Caucasus mountains are also a border between Europe and Asia.
Thus proving the almost total arbitrariness of defining Europe as a "continent" but here we are.
That's how the Romans divided the world thousands of years ago and it stuck.
Yea sorry, it's been over a decade since I last had Geography class lmao
New year's resolution: beat the odds and be not born in Asia.
Technically the odds would be with "not born in Asia", 50.31%.
Nobody ever said new year's resolutions have to be difficult.
*on preferably
They not only screwed up their continent borders, but they forgot the continent of Antarctica. There are tons of researchers who spend months (maybe years?) living there while working. It's extremely low, but there's a non-zero chance someone could be born there.
I don't know if they allow pregnant researchers there.
No, not usually. IIRC the only births ever were at a Chilean outpost, and they were trying to make a nationalistic point.
Looks like there have officially only ever been 11 Antarctic births, and none since 1985. While you're right that it's likely non-zero, it's also probably zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Antarctica
That's not how math works.
It is when comparing to billions of births somewhere else.
You round it down.
No way it would fit into those two decimal points, though.
Hehe, when I made the comment above, my brain had changed the sentence to be:
Which sounded funny to me.
Fertility is really taking a plunge tomorrow.
Children of Men starting in 5, 4, 3...
oof ouch my asthenosphere
It’s interesting that the places that make lots of babies are also the source of emigration to places that make fewer babies.
So.
I hear that India is getting better but lots of it is pretty shit.
Large parts of Africa are similarly underdeveloped.
Why are birth rates so high in these regions and not in more developed areas?
Like. I understand the thesis that things are pretty shit so why have kids that prevails in more developed nations - but why does that not hold true in less developed ones? Where things are arguably more shit?
might be similar reasons as the american settlers had, more hands for work offsets the extra mouths to feed.
Makes sense I guess.
Could explain why us politicians want to eliminate child labour laws.
Development is exactly what makes birth rates go down. People also used to have more kids in developed countries in the past, and it went down the more the countries' development indicators went up.
The reason? It's not simple, there are entire theses over the subject and, likely, different causes, but roughly, it's lower education levels, more religious influence, less women rights, criminality, etc. For many people in poorer places, having kids is not an option at all. It "just happens." Actually choosing to have kids is something very recent historically and far from something universal.
If you can figure out the answer to this question, you deserve a Nobel prize.
Every country on earth seems to be seeing the same phenomenon: the more developed and comfortable life in your country gets, the more your birthrate tanks. There are lots of theories, but nobody seems to have a good explanation or know what to do about it.
A Nobel prize you say?
Okay.
It's insects.
Less insects = less babies. More insects = more babies.
Prize please.
because "developed nations" are filled with self-indulgent narcissistic selfish people who would understandably spend their resources, all that time and energy, for something more enjoyable than trying to breed some more self-indulgent narcissistic selfish 💩
The answer is that those regions are lesser educated and are less likely to know about or use contraceptives. Another is that many of those families hope to obtain cheap child labour in their farms and other itinerary trade. This is why the excessive birth problem is particularly pronounced in the more underdeveloped parts of these countries and not the middle to high class areas.
There are a wide variety of reasons that can be explored and discussed but the way you've framed the question suggests such a narrow worldview that one feels it would be a wasted effort.
Wow, Asia's still ahead, I wouldn't have guessed that.
Africa has a dummy birthrate, though, and some of the big players over in the circle are at or below replacement.
I suppose this is the sort of map fear-fomenting rightwing racists would use to support their arguments about white replacement theory. It would be pretty effective. Sigh.
Just ask them why they cannot get laid 😎
Hopefully reincarnation doesn't exist, so I don't have to live in Africa or India.
okay. americas, eurasia, africa, australia, antarctica, oceania. happy?
Eurasia, then other Asia
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
god, I must be so unlucky
Were you born in India?
They use an instance that's for a specific region, just like me. So, likely, no.
I would just like to point out that e.g. according to buddhist belief, where/how you are reborn depends on what you helped to create in your previous life.
this is to be understood both biologically and psychologically. i.e. when you hurt someone, like your neighbor, chances are high that you're going to experience the same action done to you in your next life, but also if you help somebody ofc.
so the chance of being reborn in africa if you live in the US today are ... low, i'd say.
How many of those countries have been subject to neocolonialism and CIA coups? Lots of people support politicians who want to continue stealing from and exploiting countries in Africa and elsewhere, so by that logic it seems to me that the chances are pretty high, actually.
I don't think enough people are being born in Palestine to accommodate all the American souls who karmically ought to be reborn there.
yeah, that same idea came to me after i sent my above comment.
It sounds like you're internally associating Africa and the US with opposite "goodness" evaluations, but you never explain which way and I have no idea why you think your conclusion makes sense.
I wonder where the data starts.
I mean technically each sperm/egg combo has the potential to become a human in some scenario.
Did they include each time someone knocks one out of the park on their own?
What?
It's very obviously just the percentage of people born
Depends on how you read it 🤷♂️
“On each continent” it doesn’t necessarily say that if you were to fall outside of a percentage that you automatically are born on a different continent.
(I’m just messin with ya)