Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

samfreez t1_j6e8unq wrote

Land area is a terrible determination of size, because Canada has thousands and thousands of lakes and other bodies of water, many more than the US or China..

This basically shows why stats can be meaningless if you add enough caveats.

308

GetsGold t1_j6e9gq3 wrote

It's not meaningless. It's just another measurement. It doesn't mean China is actually bigger than these two countries, it's just saying they have more land area. That's still an interesting piece of information.

42

[deleted] t1_j6ebxvn wrote

[deleted]

−61

GetsGold t1_j6efq3x wrote

Who said anyone needs to care? It's just a piece of information.

25

_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ega20 wrote

What information do you think you are providing?

−56

GetsGold t1_j6egg7z wrote

Which countries have the most land area. Exactly what the post says. It doesn't mean countries are better, it's simply a piece of geographical information.

39

Lippy010 t1_j6ecyko wrote

Walmart and any discount store cares more about China just look where all their over priced products come from

−24

_thankyoucomeagain_ t1_j6ed9lr wrote

That has nothing to do with the topic. Just trying pull some straw man shit lol go away.

−22

rbhxzx t1_j6egah4 wrote

you don't know what a straw man is lol. he's being an idiot, just tell him that. you don't have to try to use terms you don't understand to dunk on his ""argument"" as if he or us were even having one.

12

I_FIGHT_BEAR t1_j6ezzkf wrote

Yeah there’s plenty of other criteria that can be used to justify how big a country is. Population is one, even better might be ‘persons per square mile’ if you’re talking about a place like Russia where the landmass is huge but the populations are centered to specific regions

33

GetsGold t1_j6g19fg wrote

The post isn't claiming to justify anything though. It's just stating which countries have the most land mass. Not which are biggest overall or in any other way.

29

cnnrduncan t1_j6h2tr4 wrote

If you're counting a country's size as the size of their EEZ then my country is the 4th largest in the world!

4

redstonebrain40 t1_j6iys8h wrote

Canada too. We are smol on population

3

I_FIGHT_BEAR t1_j6iz099 wrote

Yup. I’m from California, one of the oft-repeated ‘facts’ we bring up is that our state population is higher than Canada’s, which still to this day blows my goddamn mind. And if I’m honest, makes me want to move to Canada so I can fucking BREATHE

6

redstonebrain40 t1_j6j0e3l wrote

Highly recommended! Southern Ontario is basically just a big minessoda but maybe more progressive in general. Come out and visit Algonquin Park some day. And visit Toronto. Its all a treat!

3

Wired_143 t1_j6jipts wrote

Having fewer people around you is a really nice feeling. Canadian here. We moved from a small city (1+ mil) to a town under 15k. Best decision we have ever made.

2

ommnian t1_j6k1xfm wrote

As someone living in a truly rural area, calling a city with 1+ million 'small' kinda blows my mind...

2

Wired_143 t1_j6kx1fr wrote

I’m putting that size into perspective vs a city in California. In the U.S. the city centres are massive compared to the ones in Canada.

1

Powdercum t1_j6ghern wrote

"Tallest free-standing structure in the Western hemisphere"

6

ForceOfAHorse t1_j6hmud3 wrote

Why you say so? I'd say it's a better measurement considering talking about population density. You generally can't build homes, factories, farms or cities on water.

5

pzerr t1_j6iahp1 wrote

Land with lakes are far more valuable and useful than land alone and can sustain far far more people.

You want bodies of water to make land useful. Particular in that there is no lack of land in North America.

3

samfreez t1_j6i0z5e wrote

Can't build any of that on mountain ranges or in inaccessible valleys, deserts, etc either..

1

Jahobes t1_j6p32v4 wrote

I mean I would venture there are more mountain cities and towns inside and alongside than there are towns and cities built on or in water.

1

samfreez t1_j6p3s6x wrote

It would be interesting to see the real numbers there, because a lot of big cities have "reclaimed" massive tracts of land from the oceans they butt up against, in addition to things like docks and piers and things deliberately built over top of otherwise open water.

Then there are house boats and whatnot, and even entire towns in some countries (SE Asia has more than a couple floating towns IIRC, though I don't remember where exactly)

Edit: I also don't count a city/town built at the base of a mountain, because that's just normal land. I'm talking more about the inaccessible peaks themselves. Some countries like China do that a lot more often than you see in, for example, the US, but I suspect most of that would be a wash overall.

1

dracoryn t1_j6i5s7u wrote

Not meaningless, just depends what meaning you get. Say you wanted to filter to "habitable" square milage? You might filter out bodies of water, mountains, areas that get almost no rain, etc.

It is only arbitrary if you aren't intentional with filtering.

4

pzerr t1_j6ia46v wrote

And lakes and land are far more valuable than land alone.

2

elpajaroquemamais t1_j6kfer0 wrote

Reminds me of baseball stats: first Puerto Rican to hit a grand slam on a Tuesday after the all star break!

2

RaiShado t1_j6mosg4 wrote

US total area is 7% water, Canada total area is 9% water, not that far off.

1

soolkyut t1_j6fq2xn wrote

Except lots and lots of Canada is an unusable wasteland.

Edit: Sry, but as a Canadian it’s the truth. It’s why everyone lives on the border

−1

MrLeopard25 t1_j6h04zd wrote

I know you're referring to the Canadian Shield, but as someone who lives in BC, most of our province is hardly a wasteland. More of bear-country / boonies

7