LogFAQs > #914247270

WastelandCowboy posted...

However, by "eliminate all of the land", this implies that we're also eliminating the Earth's crust, mantle, and and core. This leaves just the outer core as the outer core is a liquid and technically not "land". So, now, we have massive amounts of salt water, pure drinking water, and outer core just coexisting together and I have no idea what'd happen.

Land is typically defined as the part of the Earth's surface that is not covered by water. While you could argue that when you remove the surface, the ground underneath the surface now becomes the surface and you'd have to iteratively remove the surface, when you strip enough layers that the land is now below sea level, the ocean would submerge it and you should never get below the outer layers of the mantle.

On the other hand, if we "eliminate all of the sea", that's 71% of the Earth's surface now exposed. Mankind will need to find other ways to obtain drinking water, which can be done via mixing hydrogen and oxygen gases and igniting the reaction. However, you've also killed off all fish and water species so a lot of countries will need to find new sources of food. The upside is that you will now be able to transverse the continent on foot, explore shipwrecks and areas never-before-explored by man (and not robot), and mine for minerals.

To permanently remove the sea either the Earth would have to purged of all forms of water, or the Earth's environment would have to change to the point that oceans couldn't form. Either option would likely imply extinction of most forms of life.

I'd say overall you're overestimating the damage of losing land, and underestimating the damage of losing sea.