Where is the most remote spot on the earth's land masses...that is, from an inhabited location?

Answer 1

Anywhere in Antartica

Answer 2

it depends on how you look at it. If the earth is an oblate spheroid then theoretically the north and south poles wouldnt exist because the earth wouldnt contour to meet at the supposed vortex's of north and south. They would be phantoms. this was a much talked about scientific debate before the turn of the century when Peary claimed to find the North pole. That's what killed the debate. I think there is evidence suggesting there may be more landmasses beyond the poles. Read Emersons "The Smoky God" and also "Have the Poles been discovered" by Marshall Gardner. Both of these books are great reads about the possibility of more land yet to be discovered that is NOT accustomed to the modern perception of our world in any way shape or form.

Answer 3

From an inhabited location, the most remote area would have to be Death Valley, California. It is just a shade under 300 miles north of Los Angeles, yet due to the rugged terrain, harsh climate, and lack of adequate water supplies, is a very remote area.

Answer 4

The most remote permanently inhabited location is Easter Island.

Answer 5

My first gut reaction was Antarctica but there are penguins there so I wonder if the North Pole aka Arctic Circle is a possibility too depending on how deserted the land mass is supposed to be.

Answer 6

Antarctica, as long as we're speaking of land masses, probably somewhere between the hook near South America and the South Pole. most DEFINENTLY not the North Pole because the is no land there.

Answer 7

Someware around Antarctica maybe away from science bases.

Answer 8

im going with Mount Everest here

Answer 9

The antarctic perhaps.

Do you mean by people or all creatures?