General Question

rockfan's avatar

If continents weren't separated by large bodies of water, and the entire world lived on one piece of land (but still with lakes and rivers) do you think there would be less hatred and ignorance in the world?

Asked by rockfan (11259points) May 28th, 2013

I think there would be a lot less, mainly because the social aspect of communicating and understanding cultures and languages hundreds of years ago would have been so much easier. What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

janbb's avatar

No – I think it would be as bad or worse since some of the worst conflicts are between neighboring countries or tribes.

elbanditoroso's avatar

No. It would be the same as now, or worse. By being closer (not separated by water), there would be even more opportunity for groups to kill each other, with less geographic restriction.

People organize themselves in groups, and groups fight. That has always been true. Geography is not a factor. (Example: look at the Indians in north America prior to the US being established. There was no geographic restriction. Yet they developed into various tribes, and frequently fought and killed each other)

filmfann's avatar

The Middle East nations don’t get along so well.
I do think the United States has a more tolerant attitude because of our great separation from many other nations, and because of our melting pot of a mix of people from all over the world.

SuperMouse's avatar

I don’t think there would be any less hatred and ignorance. As has already been said, more shared borders would probably make for more conflict. A

PhiNotPi's avatar

Take Europe for example. It is one continent. A lot of wars have occurred in Europe, too many to name.

Pachy's avatar

Considering the rivalry between ethnic groups, races, religions, economic groups, political parties, etc. in our own country—and we all more or less speak the same language and share the same history, traditions and customs, though you wouldn’t think so by the way Congress operates—it’s pretty hard to imagine a single continent on which all the world’s people live.

Even cave dwellers at the dawn of history didn’t get along, and there wasn’t even Rush Limbaugh back then. At least, I don’t think so.

marinelife's avatar

There would still be separate territories, and the people would be ruled by fear of “other”.

majorrich's avatar

There would still be stupid people.

cookieman's avatar

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room: I believe it was his ancestor, Rock Limbaugh.

cookieman's avatar

What’s with these vegetarian dinosaurs!? Meat not good enough for ya?! Damn liberals!

Sunny2's avatar

In the U.S. we have people who are completely ignorant of other states and have fears about them based on misinformation and hearsay. States consider seceding because of some issue the states around them want and they don’t. Being contiguous with those on land close to you doesn’t necessarily make for more acceptance. It could work the other way.

dabbler's avatar

We’d probably still fill the place up with too many people.

Gabby101's avatar

As others have pointed out – there are plenty of examples of intolerance between nations not separated by water, and civil war is the ultimate argument against your idea.

People form groups and identify each other as friend or enemy based on those groups. It’s what we do.

Pinguidchance's avatar

Yes, all will be surrounded by the pacific, like it was in Gondwana and Pangea, come the next super continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther