Maps Get People Talking

This post isn’t meant to be groundbreaking by any means, but just a short time ago I viewed a map of the U.S. with the state boundaries redrawn so that each state had an equal number of residents.  The map was just a hypothetical reorganization of the states.  It was not intended to be a call for an actual reorganization.  However, I noticed in the comments below that the map got a number of people talking.  Some were angry about the idea, some thought it funny, some chose to pick it apart discussing why it would never work.  It appeared that most of those who commented never paused to take in to account that the map was for fun.  I myself thought it amusing that so many people thought it necessary to vent over an innocent little map.  

A bit later, while reading some of the comments I noticed a link to another map.  One that illustrates the increase in obesity in America over the past 25 years.  I know that people on average are fatter than they were a several decades ago, but this map really puts things into perspective.  I decided to look at the comments below, and was somewhat shocked to see that there were only half as many comments as there were for the population reorganization map, and many of those comments were brief.  Why do so many people get upset over a hypothetical map, and have very little to say on the increasing epidemic of obesity?  Anyway, that’s my rant for the day.  Happy Thanksgiving!  


One thought on “Maps Get People Talking

  1. Wow. I’m now so terribly depressed about the state of our nation’s health. And by what you noted as a lack of interest in issues like this one in preference for more interaction over things hypothetical. What do you think it reveals about us (or at least about those who spend time on the internet visiting such sites)? Is there a correlation between the number of comments and the number of visits, I wonder? If so, might more people be sharing the representation map because of its novelty, thereby skewing the number of visitors and comments? How will this affect how historians might interpret these sites and what they mean at a later date (if they are still accessible, that is)?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s