47% of the United States is Uninhabited

You have to remember that the US Government owns 28% of the land in the US, mainly in the West. Also, the remaining land in the West is dominated by very large ranches and farms.

Er, hello?

And each of the vast, empty western States gets to elect two Senators.

I have lived in California and Utah for half of my adult life. The west does not feel under-inhabited. The fact is, there is not enough water there. All of the west is watered by the Colorado River and it is a constant source of stress when the droughts inevitably become problematic again.

And it should STAY that way!

R3 To protect the interests of those states, which might be very different from the interests of other states. What is so hard for people to understand? The House of Representatives is the People's house, it is their job to represent the will of the people and is therefore based on population. The Senate is the State's House, and their job is to represent their state, which is why every state is equal. Someone from New Jersey, North Carolina, Illinois, etc... would not necessarily know what is best for Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, etc... they would tend to follow one of two paths, either rape the land or completely preserve it, neither of which is ideal for the people that live there. Since the states do not have large populations it is imperative that they have equal representation in the Senate, or they would constantly be at the mercy of the whims of the rest of the country.

R6, I'm sorry, but there are 44 senators representing the same number of people as the two senators representing California. Some geographic diversity, sure, but the inequality in voter representation at this point is insane. It's not really geographic, either--California could swallow up New England.

State boundaries are arbitrary--let's not pretend that they're sancrosanct.

No wonder the federal government keeps treating the large populated states like cash cows for dumps like West Virginia.

R7 They are not arbitrary, states still go to federal court all the time to clarify their borders, Georgia and South Carolina were two of the original states, and yet the Supreme Court had to issue a decision on their border in 1990. What people like you seem to forget is that we are the UNITED STATES, we are one nation made up of many different states. Even the borders of post 13 original states are not arbitrary, as they were carefully carved by their founders and in some cases with consultation from the Federal government and neighboring states.

And, your dismissive view of states like WV, as dumps, proves why it is important that the states are equal in the Senate. Other states do not deserve to have their representation diminished just because California's population has grown. The people of California have their seats in the House, where all bills regarding appropriations are originated. But in the Senate all states are equal, which is as it should be, so that no one state or a small group of states can dictate to the rest of the states.

Oh shut up, R8.

The electoral college is the issue and I don’t care what you say, a Montana resident’s vote for president should not count more than mine.

R9 needs to go back and read the Constitution. S L O W L Y

[quote] which is why every state is equal.

Nope.

Underpopulated states are over represented in the senate and electoral college. The weight of their vote makes other states less important

R8--Yes, West Virginia is a dump with a thoroughly corrupt government, a serious opioid epidemic and no fix on the horizon. Like other poor red states, it's increasingly dependent on the federal teat while simultaneously braying about those other people being given hand-outs.

We'd all be better off with TRUE representation--a vote in Wyoming shouldn't have ten times the clout of a vote in New York. And, no, the House doesn't make up for it--thanks to GOP gerrymandering and the fact that the tiniest states still get a representative no matter what. There are more people in LA County than there are in 43 states--you think LA County gets the same number of representatives? Nope, they don't. Not even close.

And blather on all you want to about the "United" States--how about no taxation without representation. The way things are going, people are crowding into eight states. We're heading toward the equivalent of rotten boroughs in states like West Virginia and Wyoming.

They’re inhabited by life-giving plants and their animal companions. Human beings really don’t have to pave over *all* of nature.

If you only count the space occupied by actual dwellings, OP, over 97% of the US is uninhabited.

And if you count based on the space actually occupied by humans at any given time, 99.9999% periodic of the US is uninhabited.

Statistics are fun!

[OP] If only the rest of it were that way, too

There is one huge bright spot where there are no cities...it’s the fracking fields in North Dakota

The percentage needs to be way higher than that.

R8 don't let them beat you down - you are logical fresh air.

Like bacteria taking over a Petri dish.

Australia is 90% uninhabited

[quote] "The 4 major US deserts contain a half million miles. The Rockies & Sierra Nevada mountain ranges are mostly uninhabited."

I wouldn't say that.

Yes, but most people know that Australia is uninhabited. They don’t know almost half the US is. That’s why the GOP kees posting with those red/blue maps.

I want to move to the part that's uninHIBITED.

Nobody in that "shithole" Libya.

I wonder if the Tethered people secretly live in those areas in underground bunkers.

Only our daughter Gloria and her meathead husband live with Edith and me.

The important thing to remember is that in a few years, none of us will need cars

why is Calif. not lit up very much in OP's pic? 40 million people and it's not lit up as much as, say, Chicago.

"Calif" is a STATE and Chicago is a CITY.

California is 25% desert, plus you’ve got mountains of the Sierra Nevada, Cascades and Klamath.

What’s that bright light area up in Canada? Stands out in the general darkness.

[quote]What’s that bright light area up in Canada?

Celine Dion's gold hoard.

But Trump says we're literally bursting at the seams with people.

We are overpopulated.

[quote] R8: Georgia and South Carolina were two of the original states, and yet the Supreme Court had to issue a decision on their border in 1990.

New York and New Jersey redivided Liberty Island or Ellis Is. in the recent past.

Nah, we could fit millions more people, if done slowly and orderly.

Australia needs mountains. Some Great Lakes, too. That would change everything. This is why I should be in charge of geography.

[quote] Nah, we could fit millions more people, if done slowly and orderly.

Just because we could doesn't mean we should.

R35 I thought so, but I didn't want to take the time to look it up. I knew about the SC/GA one because it was taught in South Carolina history class, so I was more familiar with it. We've also had a long running dispute with North Carolina, but it didn't go to the Supreme Court. The problem went all the way back to before the Revolutionary War, when the Lords Proprietors decided to split the Province of Carolina into North and South. Later when an official survey was done, it was based upon landmarks that no longer exist. There were a number of people and businesses who found out they were in the wrong state. One gas station, whose entire business model was built around the cheaper South Carolina gas prices, and looser restrictions on fireworks and beer, found that they were now in a North Carolina dry county, we don't have those in SC, but an exception was made for them to continue to operate as though they were in SC, unless the owner sells the station.

R36 is clearly a realtor.

The South would be brighter if they were less adverse to street lights.

R41 I have to laugh at that, because when I spent a semester in Charleston, SC, I was shocked by how dimly lit it was, compared to other areas inland. I later found out it was to protect the sea turtles.

As opposed to two hundred years of conservative government..... right, R42....

And Canada is like 95% uninhabited.

R42 Yes, they had brighter lights until the 1980's when animal rights protections became important. Also Charleston's mayor has been a fairly liberal Democrat for decades, first Joe Riley and now John Tecklenburg.

I support increased immigration by anyone other than Muslims.

Everybody knows Canada & Australia are most,y uninhabited but most people — even most Americans - don’t know the US landmass is almost half uninhabited waste land.

[quote]New York and New Jersey redivided Liberty Island or Ellis Is. in the recent past.

The original piece of Ellis Island belongs to New York. All the parts of Ellis Island that are from landfill are the jurisdiction of NJ.

Liberty Island is all New York and an exclave of the borough of Manhattan.

NJ gets the landfill? How embarrassing.

r30, look at the lower part of Calif. where LA is. Then compare that with where Chicago is. There is a big difference. And La is more populated and spread out than Chicago.

You're probably looking at Fort McMurray, R31. That's ground zero for the tar sands, where they excavate the oil. Probably light from flares where they burn off the gas.

[quote]The South would be brighter if they were less adverse to street lights.

Oh, dear.

Who is the smarty pants who knows adverse from averse? You should go on Jepardy! And get a handle.

The poster up thread who mentioned the Colorado River being the only significant water source for the massive population you have spread along the Western States - wow! - that's unnerving. Are you including the Pacific Northwest states in this?

Also, does other snowmelt help or annually boost this usefully in any meaningful way in groundwater terms?

R54 What I don't understand is with all the talk of rising ocean levels, why don't we spend more money on developing better desalination technology for coastal areas? It could solve their problems with water shortages, and if we make the technology cheap enough, that even the poorer nations could use it, wouldn't that help to combat the rise in ocean levels?

R54, the Colorado isn’t actually the only water source. Southern California takes a lot of water from northern water sources.

For good reason, OP. It is either too steep, too high, too low, too dry, too cold, too hot, too wet, or too empty.

Hear hear R56!

Would a Californian give us a brief lecture, please?

What about all the empty spaces in Trump buildings? There's plenty of room there if you're willing to live in a gross fake gold monstrosity .

IIRC, Southern California got the rights to a lot of the water from all the way up near Sacramento, way back, perhaps in the 1930s. There was a visionary who did this, when it was cheap-ish. There was also dirty underhanded dealing that would make a good movie. The water is worth more than oil, there, today,

The pipes leak more water than CA needs. If CA fixed the leaks, and did some prudent crop management, such as no more growing rice in a desert! The same for almonds, they take a lot of water. And no more golf courses. New ones, anyway. Then, there’d be no more droughts.

I do wonder if fixing the leaks is going to cause problems for someone upstate who may have grown to depend on them, but, oh, well. LA has an iron clad contract.

I think it is the surrounding area that gets water from the Colorado. Las Vegas, Phoenix, and a lot of golf courses get watered from Lake Mead, which is formed from the Colorado where it meets the Hoover Dam. They’re having trouble lately because the lake has been at record lows. It’s not supposed to look like the picture.

Boston gets its water from central/western Massachusetts. They recently built a second water pipe for use during an emergency or maintenance. It’s all gravity fed so will work without electricity, I think.

A few years ago, we went 2 days without tap water. It wasn’t too bad but longer would have been a hardship.

Thanks R62

Can't Melania replenish all the water supplies from her tears?

We need to dissolve all borders. Humanity needs to finally live in peace,

I just read that 42% of Arizona gets its water from Lake Mead.

The Colorado is fed by mountain rain/rivers/glaciers, and that’s going to be a problem given climate change.

I heard before that San Diego built a sewage treatment plant because Tijuana was otherwise dumping its shit in the ocean, which landed up by San Diego.

R67, has anyone every referred to you as Debbie Downer and you wondered why?

R54: you may find it interesting to read that the Colorado is syphoned off so much, that it exhausts itself and runs dry before reaching the sea. I think they stopped that.

Wyoming

Almonds don't really take tons of water--it's that almond trees need watering even when not producing. On other other hand, we need trees to help curb global warming. Even rice isn't a terrible crop in California--it serves as wetlands for birds.

The most ridiculous crop grown in California as far as wasting water goes is alfalfa/hay--most of which is sent to China.

California's population is also not a big issue as far as water usage goes--the vast majority of water usage in California is by Big Ag.

Things that could help: modernizing water management--it's nonexistent and there incentives for some farmers to grow water-thirsty crops; figuring out how to more efficiently replenish the California aquifer and, finally, fixing the crazy corn subsidy system so that there's less monoculture in the Midwest. California grows the lions share of fruit and fresh vegetables, in part, because federal subsidies and other legalities make it hard for midwestern farmers to switch from corn, wheat and soy to other crops. Stupid, really. Some crops, such as, yes, almonds, are pretty much limited to growing in California, but a lot of crops, like strawberries, can be grown in other places.

Also, the drought ended a couple of years ago. This year's snowpack is at record-breaking levels and we're getting another "atmospheric river" this week.

[quote] R68: [R67], has anyone every referred to you as Debbie Downer and you wondered why?

No, I have not wondered why.

I am actually surprised it’s as much as 47%!

OP, land is not uninhabited. It is the habitat for a wealth of wildlife. So leave it alone.

[quote] We need to dissolve all borders. Humanity needs to finally live in peace,

If you think that dissolving borders will lead to peace, you're one drunk bitch.

I can see Russia, New York from my couch!

The emptiness of Canada and Mexico is more startling.

Here’s another. Christmasland is cloaked.

I drove across most of Nevada once beginning in the late afternoon, ending around 10 at night on Highway 50--aka The Loneliest Highway--you go a long ways without seeing other humans. I've also driven the Richardson Highway along the pipeline in Alaska--in summer, during the height of the tourist season. Went miles and miles without seeing another car. This is the accessible, relatively populated part of Alaska--most of the state (like 90 percent of it) is inaccessible by road.

Between the Midwest and the Pacific coast, there's a lot more land than people.

There's a lot of people who forgot to turn the light off.

I think uninhabited is probably not the right word - "lightly" inhabited would be more accurate. In the Northwest, it is not lack of water which keeps population sparse in many areas - it's the steepness of the terrain combined with very snowy winters in the highlands that keep people from settling those areas in large numbers. Further south in the West, lack of water becomes the limiting factor. However, human beings are rather well-adapted to dry climates - our African ancestors came from Savannas, not from rainforests, and Egypt has had a thriving civilization for 5000 years in one of the world's driest and most enormous deserts. Our personal water needs are modest - it's the water we use to grow food that is crucial and in short supply in many areas.