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 (
14627
)
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
No – I think it would be as bad or worse since some of the worst conflicts are between neighboring countries or tribes.
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)
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.
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
Take Europe for example. It is one continent. A lot of wars have occurred in Europe, too many to name.
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.
There would still be separate territories, and the people would be ruled by fear of “other”.
There would still be stupid people.
”What’s with these vegetarian dinosaurs!? Meat not good enough for ya?! Damn liberals!”
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.
We’d probably still fill the place up with too many people.
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.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
