Continents are a geological construct, with continents tending to be granitic, and oceanic plates typically being basalt. Dividing continents with geopolitical boundaries is a social construct.
Still it’s perhaps just a human-imposed classification scheme. What about Europe and Asia? Also, India? The boundaries themselves are quite symbolic of how we choose to see the world, even politically. We conceptually compartmentalize continuous systems using all kinds of sneaky criteria. If you’re strictly referring to geological objects, are you still even referring to continents?
At the end of the day everything about how we engage with, understand, and define the universe is based off human systems because that’s just how we do. We’re intelligent enough to recognize beyond ourselves and deduce the nature of why things happen and then use our words to describe it. A granitic continent doesn’t know its granite and a basaltic oceanic plate doesn’t know it’s basalt, it operates as it’s properties demand, like they have for billions of years before humans and will for millions of years after we’re gone.
The products of these natural cycles do lend to how humanity has organized itself for thousands of years. River valleys helped establish agriculture and the birth of “civilization”, and mountain ranges, deserts, great rivers, and oceans made for natural boundaries once populations grew to the size they started defining “them and us”.
So I do agree that continents (and natural features in general) shape how we think of the people who live there, and some places have thousands of years of history where those features were the boundaries of their nation. But the physical structure we call a continent exists with or without humans calling it a continent, nations do not. Continents influence human affairs and cultural/national identity at home and abroad, but again, that’s heaping our humanness on what is otherwise a slab of granite that is doing its thing.
I’d point out too, Earth’s plates are constantly shifting, but for the entire existence of humans they’ve only moved a few to a few dozen kilometers. Their importance to our social organizing is partly due to their seemingly static nature. But in 200-300 million years we’ll possibly be all jammed back together Pangea-style. Though I highly doubt humans will be around to see that.
True but in this society we recognize 7. To recognize only one America with consistency you’re probably looking at 4 though maybe a 5th could be argued
They are separate tectonic plates, the two continents only crashed together relatively recently, the “columbian exchange” that saw wildlife mix between the continents. South America was near Africa at one point, North America more with Europe as I understand it.
When I was on the Appalachian trail they had a placard that explained it and said it’s also the oldest mountain range in the world, and used to be like 4x the size of the himalayans (which is the youngest.) Others have disputed that, but just internet randos with no sources, I trust the NPS placard.
Hills near me (northern Scotland) were once magma chambers underneath volcanoes! That’s how worn down they are. Wild to think about, and makes some lovely granite.
We did! The canal is tens of meters deep, while bedrock is typically not more than a few meters below the surface anywhere on earth (except where cover naturally collects in places like valleys).
North and South America are considered separate continents. They’re not even connected now that the Panama canal was dug.
The Panama Canal doesn’t even go all the way down to sea level; it definitely does not make a difference.
Continents are a social construct.
Continents are a geological construct, with continents tending to be granitic, and oceanic plates typically being basalt. Dividing continents with geopolitical boundaries is a social construct.
Still it’s perhaps just a human-imposed classification scheme. What about Europe and Asia? Also, India? The boundaries themselves are quite symbolic of how we choose to see the world, even politically. We conceptually compartmentalize continuous systems using all kinds of sneaky criteria. If you’re strictly referring to geological objects, are you still even referring to continents?
At the end of the day everything about how we engage with, understand, and define the universe is based off human systems because that’s just how we do. We’re intelligent enough to recognize beyond ourselves and deduce the nature of why things happen and then use our words to describe it. A granitic continent doesn’t know its granite and a basaltic oceanic plate doesn’t know it’s basalt, it operates as it’s properties demand, like they have for billions of years before humans and will for millions of years after we’re gone.
The products of these natural cycles do lend to how humanity has organized itself for thousands of years. River valleys helped establish agriculture and the birth of “civilization”, and mountain ranges, deserts, great rivers, and oceans made for natural boundaries once populations grew to the size they started defining “them and us”.
So I do agree that continents (and natural features in general) shape how we think of the people who live there, and some places have thousands of years of history where those features were the boundaries of their nation. But the physical structure we call a continent exists with or without humans calling it a continent, nations do not. Continents influence human affairs and cultural/national identity at home and abroad, but again, that’s heaping our humanness on what is otherwise a slab of granite that is doing its thing.
I’d point out too, Earth’s plates are constantly shifting, but for the entire existence of humans they’ve only moved a few to a few dozen kilometers. Their importance to our social organizing is partly due to their seemingly static nature. But in 200-300 million years we’ll possibly be all jammed back together Pangea-style. Though I highly doubt humans will be around to see that.
True but in this society we recognize 7. To recognize only one America with consistency you’re probably looking at 4 though maybe a 5th could be argued
What do you mean “this society”? Different countries have different standards, and they’re all arbitrary.
I was literally taught two different models in school and those are far from the only ones.
Considered by whom?
People.
Damn I didn’t realize we dug into them tectonic plates.
They are separate tectonic plates, the two continents only crashed together relatively recently, the “columbian exchange” that saw wildlife mix between the continents. South America was near Africa at one point, North America more with Europe as I understand it.
I find it really cool that the Appalachian mountains used to be connected with what’s now the Scottish Highlands, if memory serves correctly.
When I was on the Appalachian trail they had a placard that explained it and said it’s also the oldest mountain range in the world, and used to be like 4x the size of the himalayans (which is the youngest.) Others have disputed that, but just internet randos with no sources, I trust the NPS placard.
So crazy to think about because they’re so worn down at this point. Neat!
Hills near me (northern Scotland) were once magma chambers underneath volcanoes! That’s how worn down they are. Wild to think about, and makes some lovely granite.
(That’s the joke)
They’re also not on the same tectonic plate
(That’s the joke)
We did! The canal is tens of meters deep, while bedrock is typically not more than a few meters below the surface anywhere on earth (except where cover naturally collects in places like valleys).