After decades of research and analysis of geoscience data, a paper published in February this year (2017) made “official” in the scientific community the classification of the seventh largest geological continent - Zealandia.
Zealandia is the youngest, thinnest and most submerged of all continents, with 94% of its surface currently under water. The name Zealandia was first used in 1995 by geophysicist Bruce Luyendyk to describe a large region of continental crust encompassing New Zealand, the Chatham Rise, Campbell Plateau, and Lord Howe Rise.
The newly published paper, Zealandia: Earth’s Hidden Continent, provides for the first time systemized evidence to show that this continental crust is large and separate enough to be considered a continent in the southwest Pacific Ocean.
Spatial limits of Zealandia / Credit: GSA Today
Zealandia, which is approximately the area of greater India, once made up about 5% of the area of the Gondwana supercontinent which began to fragment in the Mesozoic period (about 252 to 66 million years ago). Gondwana break-up resulted in continents with wide, thinned shelves, such as Zealandia and West Antarctica.
When it comes to the significance of the classification of Zealandia as a new continent, the scientists who worked on the paper say:
Names and labels are very powerful things in science and society.
The aim of publishing the science paper was to formally describe and define Zealandia. That alone is worth doing: a world map showing Zealandia is better than one that doesn't.
For people who study how and why continents break apart, deform and collide, Zealandia is potentially as useful as the Himalayas. It is the thinnest, most submerged and smallest continent, but is not completely shredded or broken into small pieces.
Inevitably, Zealandia will be of use to other natural sciences. For the biological world, Zealandia provides a new and useful context of flora and fauna evolving on a continent whose landmass shrank, and sank beneath the waves. Geologists, geophysicists, zoologists, botanists, paleoclimate modellers and conservationists should all care about Zealandia.
So, why is Zealandia a continent? Firstly, here is a quick refresher of basic geology.
The rigid, uttermost layer of the planet is broken into tectonic plates. Tectonic plates comprise of an oceanic portion covered with oceanic crust and continental portion covered with thicker continental crust. The continental crust comprises of continents and continental shelves - the submerged landmass which extends from the continent and shapes the areas of shallow seabed close to their shores.
There are four key attributes that define a continent, and the scientists make the case that Zealandia has all of them.
Credit: GNC Science
1. Elevation
Continents and their continental shelves are always elevated above the oceanic crust and so is Zealandia. Unlike other continents, however, it has much wider and deeper continental shelves and is 94% submerged below current sea level. The highest point of Zealandia is Aoraki–Mount Cook at 3724 m.
2. Geology
Continents are comprised of many diverse types of rocks, such as granite, limestone, quartzite, and schist. Geological data collected in the past 20 years provides enough evidence that Zealandia has the necessary structure to qualify as a continent.
3. Crustal Structure
Continental crust varies in thickness with an average of 30-46 km, in contrast to oceanic crust, which is typically 7 km thick. Zealandia is the continent with the thinnest crust ranging from 10 to 30 km but analysis shows that it is everywhere thicker than 7 km.
4. Limits and area
The six commonly recognized geological continents (Africa, Eurasia, North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia) are spatially isolated by geologic features. Zealandia's continental crust is spatially separated from Australia by the Cato Trough - 3600 m deep and floored by oceanic crust.
--------
The authors of the paper hope that the evidence presented in it legitimizes the existence of this 4.9 Mkm2 continent and, after 20 years of research and data collection, finally gives scientists around the world a proper name and label to use in their studies.
As they conclude: “Zealandia illustrates that the large and the obvious in natural science can be overlooked.”
'The pursuit of Happiness' is a famous phrase in a famous document, the United States Declaration of Independence (1776). But few know that its author was inspired by an ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus. Thomas Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean. He probably found the phrase in John Locke, who, like Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Adam Smith, had also been influenced by Epicurus.
Nowadays, educated English-speaking urbanites might call you an epicure if you complain to a waiter about over-salted soup, and stoical if you don't. In the popular mind, an epicure fine-tunes pleasure, consuming beautifully, while a stoic lives a life of virtue, pleasure sublimated for good. But this doesn't do justice to Epicurus, who came closest of all the ancient philosophers to understanding the challenges of modern secular life.
Epicureanism competed with Stoicism to dominate Greek and Roman culture. Born in 341 BCE, only six years after Plato's death, Epicurus came of age at a good time to achieve influence. He was 18 when Alexander the Great died at the tail end of classical Greece – identified through its collection of independent city-states – and the emergence of the dynastic rule that spread across the Persian Empire. Zeno, who founded Stoicism in Cyprus and later taught it in Athens, lived during the same period. Later, the Roman Stoic Seneca both critiqued Epicurus and quoted him favourably.
Today, these two great contesting philosophies of ancient times have been reduced to attitudes about comfort and pleasure – will you send back the soup or not? That very misunderstanding tells me that Epicurean ideas won, hands down, though bowdlerised, without the full logic of the philosophy. Epicureans were concerned with how people felt. The Stoics focused on a hierarchy of value. If the Stoics had won, stoical would now mean noble and an epicure would be trivial.
Epicureans did focus on seeking pleasure – but they did so much more. They talked as much about reducing pain – and even more about being rational. They were interested in intelligent living, an idea that has evolved in our day to mean knowledgeable consumption. But equating knowing what will make you happiest with knowing the best wine means Epicurus is misunderstood.
The rationality he wedded to democracy relied on science. We now know Epicurus mainly through a poem, De rerum natura, or 'On the Nature of Things', a 7,400 line exposition by the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who lived c250 years after Epicurus. The poem was circulated only among a small number of people of letters until it was said to be rediscovered in the 15th century, when it radically challenged Christianity.
Its principles read as astonishingly modern, down to the physics. In six books, Lucretius states that everything is made of invisible particles, space and time are infinite, nature is an endless experiment, human society began as a battle to survive, there is no afterlife, religions are cruel delusions, and the universe has no clear purpose. The world is material – with a smidgen of free will. How should we live? Rationally, by dropping illusion. False ideas largely make us unhappy. If we minimise the pain they cause, we maximise our pleasure.
Secular moderns are so Epicurean that we might not hear this thunderclap. He didn't stress perfectionism or fine discriminations in pleasure – sending back the soup. He understood what the Buddhists call samsara, the suffering of endless craving. Pleasures are poisoned when we require that they do not end. So, for example, it is natural to enjoy sex, but sex will make you unhappy if you hope to possess your lover for all time.
Epicurus also seems uncannily modern in his attitude to parenting. Children are likely to bring at least as much pain as pleasure, he noted, so you might want to skip it. Modern couples who choose to be 'child-free' fit within the largely Epicurean culture we have today. Does it make sense to tell people to pursue their happiness and then expect them to take on decades of responsibility for other humans? Well, maybe, if you seek meaning. Our idea of meaning is something like the virtue embraced by the Stoics, who claimed it would bring you happiness.
Both the Stoics and the Epicureans understood that some good things are better than others. Thus you necessarily run into choices, and the need to forgo one good to protect or gain another. When you make those choices wisely, you'll be happier. But the Stoics think you'll be acting in line with a grand plan by a just grand designer, and the Epicureans don't.
As secular moderns, we pursue short-term happiness and achieve deeper pleasure in work well done. We seek the esteem of peers. It all makes sense in the light of science, which has documented that happiness for most of us arises from social ties – not the perfect rose garden or a closet of haute couture. Epicurus would not only appreciate the science, but was a big fan of friendship.
The Stoics and Epicureans diverge when it comes to politics. Epicurus thought politics brought only frustration. The Stoics believed that you should engage in politics as virtuously as you can. Here in the US where I live, half the country refrains from voting in non-presidential years, which seems Epicurean at heart.
Yet Epicurus was a democrat. In a garden on the outskirts of Athens, he set up a school scandalously open to women and slaves – a practice that his contemporaries saw as proof of his depravity. When Jefferson advocated education for American slaves, he might have had Epicurus in mind.
I imagine Epicurus would see far more consumption than necessary in my own American life and too little self-discipline. Above all, he wanted us to take responsibility for our choices. Here he is in his Letter to Menoeceus:
For it is not drinking bouts and continuous partying and enjoying boys and women, or consuming fish and the other dainties of an extravagant table, which produce the pleasant life, but sober calculation which searches out the reasons for every choice and avoidance and drives out the opinions which are the source of the greatest turmoil for men's souls.
Do you see the 'pursuit of happiness' as a tough research project and kick yourself when you're glum? You're Epicurean. We think of the Stoics as tougher, but they provided the comfort of faith. Accept your fate, they said. Epicurus said: It's a mess. Be smarter than the rest of them. How modern can you get?
This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons. Read the original article.
