Why aren't continents defined by plate tectonics?

If we're going to divide the Earth's crust up into defined pieces, the most logical way to do it would be to define continents as....well, the actual broken up pieces of the crust, rather than arbitrary lines drawn using coastlines (which change) and politics (how exactly are EUrope and Asia, which are both on one landmass, separate continents?). The most laughable failure of our current continental definition (which doesn't really exist - ask someone to define what a continent is and they won't really be able to give an exact answer) is what we do with all those South Pacific Islands. Are they part of Asia? Do we lump them in with Australia? Wait, Greenland is huge, why is it part of North America but Australia is it's own continent? Are thye even part of a continent?

Defining continents via plate tectonics gives us a specific definition and also makes the most sense as there is no ambiguity. It's also more accurate - yes,you can walk from India to China, but in fact India and China are on two separate pieces of crust, they aren't actually connected to each other, their contiguity is an illusion.

So what woudl our continents be if we did this? Well, it'd be a lot longer. We'd end up with the following familiar ones (their borders are relatively similar to conventional definitions, though Iceland is now half in North America as is the Russian Far East and the Northern half of Japan):

North America
Eurasia
South America
Antarctica
Australia
Africa

As well as the following "new" ones:

The Caribbean
The Pacific
India
Arabia
Nazca
Scotia
Cocos
The Phillippines (we'd need to re-word this name somehow - the actual Philippines aren't on this plate, they're on the Eurasian plate)
Juan de Fuca

I think it's a good idea. What about you? I'm already anticipating the can-oceans-be-continents debate.

Edit: Here's what our continents would be -

 

I say leave things alone. Continents are as much cultural as they are physical.

 

I was under the impression Continents were supposed ot be geographical not cultural. If they were cultural, there'd be thousands of continents.

 

Cultural? Geology is now defined by 'cultural'? Wouldn't Mexico be considered a 'continent' then? Indian culture certainly differs from Chinese culture. Greenland is bigger than South America and Australia..it doesn't rate being a continent? I don't get the Europe Asia thing either.

 

Why are Asia and Europe considered separate continents? It's not due to plate tectonics or even any physical feature......

Geology is not the same as geography. Look it up.....

- - - Updated - - -

Then tell me why Asia and Europe have usually been considered separate continents? SHow me on the map why the divisions are where they are? It's based on culture and ethnicity, not physical features. Much of geography is based on cultural rather than physical features.

 

The problem with this idea is that it's inconsistent. Mexico is part of Latin America and has more culturally to do with South American countries, but is part of North America. The Middle East could not be more culturally different from China than it is, but they are part of the same continent in the conventional definition, which makes no sense if culture is the real reason.

It's called "Europeans made the maps and made Europe look special" even though in a physical sense it is simply the eastern-most extension of a much larger landmass.

Tectonics is scientific and would make more sense to follow when defining continents. Human culture has nothing to do with the physical properties of the Earth.

 

Yeah, I knew that..didn't even have to "look it up".....just wanted to see if you did too.

 

Tectonics woudl be the more scientific description, but I just don't see it getting traction. There are also some problems with it. For example, a chunk of Siberia is on the North American plate. That makes little geographic sense, but it does make tectonic sense.

 

You're suffering from Mercator's disease if you think Greenland is bigger than South America, hie thee to a globe, oh cartographically misinformed.

Europe is separated from Asia by the Urals and then the Black Sea. It is a different area geo-culturally. Europe is "Rimland", a lot of countries and climates packed into a small area, most all of it being close enough to large water (Atlantic, Baltic, Med or Black Sea) so that there's a major effect both on people and weather. Asia is largely the opposite, and hence seen as the epitome of "Heartland"

You might want to look at military theory of the 19th century. Or better, get a copy of Jared Diamond's classic Guns, Germs and Steel.

I don't think your schema will ever catch on. The continents are geo-cultural constructs that have evolved over the millennia so they largely fit the general regions of the world, somewhat like the provinces of China. Also, not enough people are that familiar with the shape and location of the Plates, but, hey, knock yourself out. Write a book and you might even get your own movement, like Esperanto or the Universal Calendar.

 

Well what is your definition of geographic? It only doesn't make sense because we insist that Eastern Siberia is part of the same landmass as the rest of Russia, but this isn't true, Eastern Siberia is on a different piece of land, the difference is that there is no ocean marking the fault line, just mountains, so our land-locked mindset sees it as one place. When you cross the Himalayas, for example, you are not travelling across one solid landmass (Asia), you are crossing between two different plates. You are, for all intents and purposes, going to a different landmass.

 

The Holocene Calender is actually a good idea but that's beside the point.

Your premise only applies to Europe and Asia, and it's only because Europeans made the maps. The Middle East is culturally different from China, but they're both considered Asia. The distinction between Europe and the rest of Eurasia is just Eurocentrism at its finest. Why culture matters when we're discussing physical geography is beyond me - it doesn't matter if Japan, for example, LOOKS like a single place, the fact is it's actually half in Eurasia and half in North America (tectonically speaking).

 

I dig your assessment. I remember being in the 4th or 5th grade and
remembering a teacher saying that South America looks like it fits into
Africa. I thought it was cool and almost fell for it. Looks are deceiving.

Exactly.

Cool.

 

You are correct. Cultures are cultural. Continents are geological.

 

This is from the New York Times. Since this isn't political I believe this
to be quite accurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lewis-myth.html

 

Not really. If you are walking across Siberia, you won't notice a change from one plate to the next, other than the mountain range there. The plates don't match the way humans look at the earth. It's frankly silly to view eastern Siberia as a different continent than western Siberia. Just look at the map.

 

Actually, Africa does fit into South America, because geologically at one time, South America and Africa were one continent. Study plate tectonics

 

You didn't say we were discussing just physical geography until this post.

 

Wrong. Japan is not on the North American Plate. It is located on the edge of the Eurasian plate where the Pacific plate is subducting under the Eurasian Plate, the Phillipine plate is subducting under the Pacific plate, and the Eurasian plate. A few of the smaller islands are on the Phillipine plate. The main islands are on the Eurasian plate.



http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_asia/japan_tec.html

 

Your perception doesn't matter. Eastern Siberia is on a completely separate piece of crust from the rest of Eurasia. They aren't connected.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why is there a widely available map showing it so?

I'm not saying it can't be wrong, but you'd think if it were it wouldn't be used so much.

- - - Updated - - -

Continents have nothing to do with non-physical geography, or at least there isn't any reason for them to. I thought that was just assumed, and I thought from everything I was saying it was fairly obvious I was trying to separate human considerations from the definition.

 

I just like to use a little common sense. Since my perception is shared by most geographer, they are connected.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the more precise map shows things differently. I think you based your initial posts on a very superficial view of the plates. The more specific versions show you to be wrong.

It's because the map you referred to is a high level map, without a lot of detail. The detailed map which I linked is more precise. You aren't much of a scientist are you?

The field of geography does include human considerations. You tried to ignore that, which is foolish.

 

I don't get how it's "common sense". All it is is you perpetuating the commonly accepted but vaguely defined meaning of continent. Commonly used =/= sensible.

First off, you can shove the personal jab. Second, the high-level view doesn't mean anything in terms of preciseness - it shows the northern half of Japan being part of the North American plate. That's not an error of detail, that's a blatant lack of knowledge about the location of the tectonic faults by whoever made it.

We're talking about physical geography. That has nothing to do with us unless we directly cause change in physical geography. It's not foolish, you're inserting humans into the subject of plate tectonics, which has nothing to do with us.

 

Granny wants to go there so she can hob-nob with the natives...

Earth has a new continent called 'Zealandia'
Feb 17, 2017, We're taught in elementary school that there are seven continents on Earth -- Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America.

 

Agreed! Really.

And Pluto is planet number 9. Yes it is. Nuc Ceres!

Like and a Reputation Tag!​

Moi


r > g

View attachment 47293
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Plate collisions within existing continents.

Which continent would California be?

 

Then explain why Asia and Europe are considered two separate continents. There is no physical barrier between them.