AX: What if there were more land masses and less oceans? page 2

39 posts

Flag Post

I’m going to guess that inland areas would have more people than there were. Wars would either be smaller and take less time, or nonexistent. There also would be more uniform languages, but still having their own variations and dialects. I’m certain that there would also be dramatic changes in how governments were set up, and probably how big/strong a country is.

 
Flag Post

I am amused at how it is automatically assumed that everyone will be confined to the tropical areas. Just because a single society does not “travel away” from the tropical climate does not mean that OTHER cultures will not be present outside of that climatory zone. And to idiot1994, I agree. Wars would more than likely be on smaller scales, at least initially. As far as government changes, I think much of that would be based upon cultural adaptation, but in the end, humanity’s sense of “logic” would more than likely still lead to some form of government, or variation thereof, that is employed in a society today.

 
Flag Post

It would be a great deal more inhospitable away from the equator without a gulf stream or kuro siwo.

 
Flag Post

Absolutely. On the other hand, for any sort of land to support life, you would need water sources and relatively temperate climate, for at least a portion of the year. And Mother Nature has always proven that when not enough of the land supports life, the Earth changes to make sure that enough life is supported.

 
Flag Post

Or it turns into desert or dead zones.

 
Flag Post

Or it turns into desert

Which itself supports a lot of life.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TarynDarkwind:

Absolutely. On the other hand, for any sort of land to support life, you would need water sources and relatively temperate climate, for at least a portion of the year. And Mother Nature has always proven that when not enough of the land supports life, the Earth changes to make sure that enough life is supported.

Proof that the Earth changes to make sure that enough life is supported.

Originally posted by Jabor:

Or it turns into desert

Which itself supports a lot of life.

kind of

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jabor:

Or it turns into desert

Which itself supports a lot of life.

Considering the thread is focused on human life, not bacteria, snakes, and beetles, I think that is a largely irrelevant point. Desertification can significantly hinder human development in a region.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TarynDarkwind:

And Mother Nature has always proven that when not enough of the land supports life, the Earth changes to make sure that enough life is supported.

Actually it’s life itself that changes to make sure it survives.

I would post a very long text, but almost all of it was described by TarynDarkwind. Things I would like to add:

- Since there are less oceans, and assuming the changes you’re talking about only happens on the outer layer of the planet, there would probably be less room for the land masses to stray, that means less earthquakes and more crucial: Less mountains. So we are looking at a huge plain land mass, and that is more likely to cause advancements in agriculture and domestication faster than it really happened.

-Also helps to explain that wars would take less time to end (since there would be less natural defenses), and possibly make room for huge empires.
The thing about these huge empires is that almost all of them (just not to say all of them) only survived while they had enemies and could engage war. Just when they were reaching for a great time of peace, they collapsed. So probably with these faster wars, these great empires would also last for less time (again another thing already pointed out)

- I really don’t know about the most recent technology (ships, land vehicles, airplanes, etc) I have this idea that “if that great inventor had not existed, his technology would be developed by someone else, not so long after, maybe even before” So why do you think ships wouldn’t be developed as much? Before the europeans discovered the American Continent, they didn’t know it existed, so their world WAS a huge central land mass surrounded by water. It doesn’t matter if there was more land or more water, people can’t know if they don’t go out to sea and find out if it’s really like this. - Only maybe if you believe that in a world like that it’s easier to make sattellites than boats

 
Flag Post

Refer back to the axioms guys. The point here is not to debate whether or not this new ecosystem would support life, but to speculate on what world events could’ve possibly changed.

I’m curious as to whether there would be such a difference in race. Sure there would be a few differences, but without huge bodies of water separating the continents, doesn’t it make sense to assume that people could spread out more, possibly blending cultural differences until they were nonexistent?

 
Flag Post

I think it would come down to the distribution of navigable rivers. The lifeblood of all civilization is information exchange, because no matter how many people you might have, if they are in isolated communities, they would just repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Once you get past a certain stage, the larger population would be a problem. It would be a race between technology and population spread. If technology didn’t develop much faster than it did on our world, it would likely become stagnant. Agriculture must beat overfishing. Astronomy requires clean air and dark nights. Developing industrialization requires resources to burn.

Originally posted by PCal:

I actually think that given right conditions it could have stunted the growth of humanity. Here is my reasoning it seems like areas outside of the tropical zone earth developed quicker than those within it. If there was a greater land mass in this area then I think humans might have developed slower.

Yeah, what would Egypt, Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, India, China, Greece, Rome, or Florence know about founding civilization?

 
Flag Post

Then there would be less water.

 
Flag Post

thanks for stating the obvious moomanmatt

 
Flag Post

nuttin would rilly happen…just less fish