Chances of being born in each Continent

It’s not zero for Antarctica, just nearly zero. 11 people have been born in Antarctica. Mostly argentinians but also a couple chileans.

Okay and that would still be less than 0.00% which is the significant figures on the chart. They can't just put 0.01.because 11 out 8 billion people were born there.
- They could have put <0.01 but either way there's no real society/culture there to bwgin with. I personally wouldn't have even included it on the map.
  I will say if they were included on education stats, they would probably top all global charts.
- It's a good reminder though that 0.0% doesn't have to equal 0
Do you think it's really 7.66 for north america or is it nearly 7.66?
The people that were born there each had a 100% chance of being born there. Actually, that’s true for all areas.

New Zealand’s gone missing again, I’m assuming it’s lumped in with Australia.

No it means there is zero percent chance of New Zealand
- NaN
New Zealand is in stealth mode. We keep it off the maps so trump doesn't know it exists and leaves it alone
It's crazy they did include a bit of Russia near Alaska and also bothered to add the Galapagos (where nobody lives) but omitted NZ

No chance of being born in New Zealand I see

Remember everyone: 100.00% does not mean all, and 0.00% does not mean none, just like 50.00% does not mean exactly half. They all are accurate to 0.005% points.

So there's a chance I'll be born in Antarctica?
- You, no. Some other guy, maybe.
- IIRC Argentina facilitated a few births on the outlying islands to make a point. Usually kids are avoided in such a harsh and precarious place, though.
- Small chance you still might, I'll cross my fingers for you
- Yes, though then we’ll have to test your blood to make sure.
- Yes, there was a chance 'you' could have been born in Antarctica.

Maps without New Zealand

I'm not so sure I would trust any statistics from a map that's missing New Zealand.

hawaians are also mourning the loss

So me being born in Australia was like getting a mythic prize in a loot crate.

A very rare prize for sure, but is it very valuable too? Considering the wildlife there I'm not so sure.

Technically Antarctica isn't 0. There's a civilian colony and at least one baby has been born there.

Eh it rounds down at that point
11 people were born there. That's a ~0.00000000133649348822 chance. Small but not impossible.
Also there's penguins being born down there.
You never specified humans...

Do you come from a land of plenty?

Statistically, no.

Holy shit mum, im in the 1%!
Time to retire and enjoy my vast fortune of Tim Tams
- Also, your easy access to Bundaberg root beer :(

I think those chances vary a lot based on where your parents live.

Same way Russia can be split in two continents I suppose.
- Should really define it based on something more concrete like fault lines

Y'all probably already knew about the Valeriepieris circle, I guess.

I did, but now I also know about Danny Quah's 2015 circle :)

How about chances of being born in the ocean, or even on this planet?

We'd need data on beings born on other planets to determine that. Currently there's a 100% chance that you were born on this planet if you're a human.
- if you’re a human.
  You can leave this out, unless we are considering fission “born”. Even experiments like ant colonies in orbit are arguably within the confines of earth. Unless we want to start defining “on” in which case I posit that a baby born in an airplane is not born a citizen of earth.
Look, if you had one shot or one opportunity

Can't believe I used up all my luck for that

Fellow Antarctican?

What time frame does this represent?

Births in 2025 might be majority subsaharan Africa.

It would be really interesting to see chances of being born across all time. Like what is the probability of being born here and now vs. somewhere else in the past or the future.
You would have to make some predictions based on population growth and maybe model a few different possible apocalypses (average species lifetime/meteor probabilities/nuclear doomsday/climate disaster etc.) but it would be a fun model to play with.
- ~~If you limit it to births to date, it's going to be mostly Africa again, for a different reason.~~ If you were to stick to a few millenniums back it could be interesting, I guess, because agricultural regions will dominate. I would suspect data for the late Paleolithic isn't known with any certainty.
  Past a century into the future, it becomes basically all assumptions. Humans are a very prosperous species and it seems likely we'll have descendants on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Even if we manage to destroy civilisation, any group of survivors could be back up and building cities in a geological instant.
  If things stay progressive and prosperous, the natural birth rates are going to collapse because people just don't bother to reproduce. Are we going to do Brave New World baby factories? If we do, population becomes a matter of policy. Unless people migrate far more than today, which doesn't seem impossible, in which case you have to make assumptions about where they'll want to go.

Chances of this being the most useless infographic to ayone: 94%

Ok, now make this but per land area.

there are three continents, four if you have to add Australia

don't give me that canal crap either, i will die on this hill

Continents are mostly a cultural subdivisions, not based on geology, it's pointless to debate about it. Good video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsxRJdwfM0
- it's pointless to debate about it.
  Good sir, this is the internet!
- That's loser speak for "@Gold_E_Lox is right"
- if its the map men video im going to be slightly upset but also very happy to have to binge all the map men videos again
Australia's bigger than Antarctica, and if you don't care about that "canal crap" then there are only really two continents bigger than it.
- antarctica is the third...

Why is Europe a continent but not Russia and its culturally similar bordering countries?

Racism, mostly.
Continents are a human convention, not an objective fact of reality.
The 7 continent model most English speakers learn is one convention.
Personally I prefer a 6 continent model that combines Europe and Asia into Eurasia.
Latin Americans use a 6 continent model that merges North and South America into "America". Personally I think this is silly because there's no rational basis to merge those and not merge Afro-Eurasia into one mega-continent.
Which you could do. A 4 continent model with Afro-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Oceania.
There are also completely distinct ways of deciding continents. The conventional ones above are mostly "large contiguous landmasses", with a bit of a cultural overlay.
You could do a much more heavily culturally-inspired take, which would make Arabia a distinct continent, and the Indian subcontinent, and probably separate Northern, Eastern, and Southern Africa into at least 3 continents.
Another completely different way of defining it is, of course, tectonic plates.
And the final one I'll mention is biogeographic realms which, among other things, moves the split between Oceania and Asia from the border between PNG and Indonesia to (probably—there are a few alternatives) the Wallace Line between Borneo and Sulawesi in Indonesia.
None of these is really more correct than the others in any objective sense. It's just human convention.
- In France 5 are taught.
  America, Oceania, Europe, Asia, Africa
  Yeah. Continent conventions are political, not geographical.
- This person maps.
Most of Russia is in Asia. A lot of the more visible people are in Europe. But there's plenty of groups living in the east. Man, sometimes I just think to myself, "someone's ancestors chose to live there". Idk which route they took to get to Siberia, but either way, they went through some pretty good spots and went, "nah, I'll go to the icy desert" lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia?wprov=sfla1 mostly for historical reasons, but many consider Europe and Asia a single continent
Thank you for the replies.

Oceania???

0.58%ceania

Challenge accepted! Proceeds to breed in Antarctica

It would be nice if there were a year attached to this. Is this supposed to be based on the current day? Or was this map put together several years ago?

There should at least be a decade listed, as birth trends today aren’t going to be identical to trends from the recent past. For example, China only ended their “one child policy” in 2016. If this map were made before that, it might need an update by now.