Poll of the Day > Would You Rather No 119

(+) Yeah! (+)

You can only eliminate one.
---

Well, that's an interesting situation. Eliminate all of the land and the world's human population will need to find new places to live, grow food, and drink. You've also killed off a huge amount of land-dwelling animals and affected the food chain. 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.

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.

Being as I'll die without water probably all land and then try and live on a boat until sharks eventually at me.
---

Eliminate all sea, I guess...
---

Life on earth could continue without land, not so without sea
---

LinkPizza posted...

Eliminate all sea, I guess...

How do you drink anything with no water?
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Eliminate all sea, I guess...

How do you drink anything with no water?

Idk yet. I guess wed have to figure out something... though, he said sea. So, maybe that just gets rid of the salt water. And wed still have fresh water from like lakes and stuff, I guess...
---

Land. I need water.
---

The majority of the oxygen on Earth comes not from trees but from phytoplankton in the ocean. Eliminate the sea and we have no air to breathe.

Also, I dont want to learn how to swim. Nor would I want to wear a life jacket all the time. Wetsuits are better, but still... And the ocean scares me sometimes. Its a scary place... like the deep parts...
---

They have fish farms, so I'm going with eliminate the sea.
---

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.

DiduXD posted...

You can only eliminate one.

Oh I wanted to eliminate both..

I think sea is just salt water. Not saying that its good to remove it. Just saying that we might be fine without it for a little. Unless were speaking geographically. Then theres a difference between sea and ocean, apparently...
---

I'm still not seeing how folk are expecting to drink without the sea.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I'm still not seeing how folk are expecting to drink without the sea.

I think we could last for a little. I think sea is just technically salt water. And geographically, not all salt water. Wed probably run out fast, maybe...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I think we could last for a little.

Sure based on the current supplies we have but after that we are fucked.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think we could last for a little.

Sure based on the current supplies we have but after that we are fucked.

Maybe. Idk. I dont know much about how our water supply works fully. I would have to do more research. I know we do have water stored already. And I know that we have a good amount of lake and probably fresh water streams and rivers. But Idk how long it would last us. Though, without the sea, they may put a limit on it. Also, I guess it depends on if its sea, as in salt water, or sea as in Geographically. Though, he could mean all water. But if were keeping land underwater, then maybe not...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And I know that we have a good amount of lake and probably fresh water streams and rivers.

You're aware they all come from the sea right? Without the sea we get no water. Without water we die. Land on the other hand we could technically live without.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And I know that we have a good amount of lake and probably fresh water streams and rivers.

You're aware they all come from the sea right? Without the sea we get no water. Without water we die. Land on the other hand we could technically live without.

Probably. But they wouldnt technically be the sea at that point.

Plus, I dont remember Water World being a fun place to live it. But its been a long time...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Probably. But they wouldnt technically be the sea at that point.

They also wouldn't exist.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I dont remember Water World being a fun place to live it. But its been a long time...

I'd love to live at sea for a bit. Still I'd take not being fun over dying.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Probably. But they wouldnt technically be the sea at that point.

They also wouldn't exist.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I dont remember Water World being a fun place to live it. But its been a long time...

I'd love to live at sea for a bit. Still I'd take not being fun over dying.

Would they not? Idk. I guess it depends on what he meant by sea. Also, Id probably die either way. And would want to live with only sea, anyway. So, for me, personally, Id still choose to eliminate sea. At least I could love on land for the rest of whatever is left of life...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Would they not? Idk.

The Sea is all source of water. Every spring, lake.dam or river finds it's way to there. Without it you'll also have no rain so growing crops would be very hard.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, Id probably die either way.

We all will. I would want to live as long as possible though.

LinkPizza posted...

So, for me, personally, Id still choose to eliminate all sea.

Doesn't make much logical sense if any at all but alright.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Would they not? Idk.

The Sea is all source of water. Every spring, lake.dam or river finds it's way to there. Without it you'll also have no rain so growing crops would be very hard.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, Id probably die either way.

We all will. I would want to live as long as possible though.

LinkPizza posted...

So, for me, personally, Id still choose to eliminate all sea.

Doesn't make much logical sense if any at all but alright.

What about like lakes and other closed off bodies of water?

And it makes sense since I dont like the water. Id probably die faster. And probably bored. And scared. Thats why I said would personally choice to eliminate water. Going to die either way. Might as well be on land. I would hate to drown. And we will probably still have power. And Id be able to see my family for a little before it happen. Eliminating all land would suck for me. Thats why Id personally choose to eliminate all sea.
---

LinkPizza posted...

What about like lakes and other closed off bodies of water?

Lakes lead to the sea. Even if it's just a small crack that lets the water flow from the sea to the lake it's still from the sea. Hell you could even say the rain creates these lakes too and the rain is from the sea and of course other bodies of water it creates. Ever water source leads back to the sea.

LinkPizza posted...

And it makes sense since I dont like the water.

I said it isn't logical. Without water you will die quicker as will all life. Your personal preference doesn't concern me.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

What about like lakes and other closed off bodies of water?

Lakes lead to the sea. Even if it's just a small crack that lets the water flow from the sea to the lake it's still from the sea. Hell you could even say the rain creates these lakes too and the rain is from the sea and of course other bodies of water it creates. Ever water source leads back to the sea.

LinkPizza posted...

And it makes sense since I dont like the water.

I said it isn't logical. Without water you will die quicker as will all life. Your personal preference doesn't concern me.

And youre doesnt concern me. It said would you rather which is asking us which wed rather. And why would I want to live horribly? Or die horribly? Dying faster would be much better. I would want to live either way. Though, I would prefer no water to land. But if that cause me to die faster, then bring it on. Less time living in a shitty world. And I could still see my family before dying. No land instantly would be death for me. I dont have a boat or money for one. Even if I had to money, I wouldnt be able to swim long enough to get one. Mainly because I cant swim. Its a logical choice based on not wanting to hold on to live in a shitty world. Some people would be ok with no land. I would not. And thats why I made my choice.
---

Quick reminder, all of the planet's water came from within the land, no land means no planet of any substance.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Quick reminder, all of the planet's water came from within the land, no land means no planet of any substance.

So you're saying a planet can only exist if it's got land on it? Interesting.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Quick reminder, all of the planet's water came from within the land, no land means no planet of any substance.

So you're saying a planet can only exist if it's got land on it? Interesting.

I'm saying the planet doesn't have enough water to hold itself together in space, so can't be planetary without land.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm saying the planet doesn't have enough water to hold itself together in space, so can't be planetary without land.

Well I guess we are fucked whatever way then.
---