-5
$\begingroup$

I am in the process of building a world where all animals suddenly die and only four types of creatures survive on planet Earth: humans, (green) plants, bacteria and fungi.

The Question:

I am interested in knowing how this would change the world. Specifically, the economic and cultural implications. Of course the impact would be extremely severe as animals are a vital part of our environments.

  • Would humanity survive this blow? (Death of all farm animals and fish would mean a lot of food would be destroyed along with creating billions of dollars in loss). Would there be enough vegetables to feed the whole population?

  • How severe would be the shock factor? Also, how would human culture and values change, both immediately and in the long run?


$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by fi12, Aify, AndreiROM, JDSweetBeat, James Mar 24 '16 at 17:35

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Hi Nevi, welcome to the site. The question you are mentioning is now closed, because it was deemed not suitable for the site. You can also check this meta question about it. $\endgroup$ – bilbo_pingouin Mar 24 '16 at 11:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Google won't have to keep improving the YouTube servers as quickly because the rate at which cat videos are uploaded will decrease dramatically. $\endgroup$ – iAdjunct Mar 24 '16 at 12:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @YoustayIgo - I believe that such an extensive edit on behalf of another user, to the point where you invent a back-story for them, etc. is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, the question is still far too broad. A user who'd been around the block, such as yourself, should know better. This edit has sparked a Meta conversation: meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3416/… $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Mar 24 '16 at 16:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nevi could you please let us know how you feel about this edit? Normally we would reject such a major rewrite as changing the author's intent, but if you two talked about it and you're ok with it, that's different. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Mar 24 '16 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio I was really surprised by the edit because I didn't expect the editor to turn my question to something so good. I allowed him to edit, he made a really nice post, I was very glad, I don't think it is unacceptable. If I had found the edit bad, i would have rollbacked it, so no worries :) $\endgroup$ – Nevi Mar 25 '16 at 10:06
3
$\begingroup$

We all die.

Animals have huge impacts on ecosystems they are all intertwined. Just killing off one animal from an area can have devastating effects on ecosystems.

Even right now we are on the brink of a crisis because pollinators are having systemic die-offs. Killing off all bees on the planet alone could cause huge famines around the world.

So we all die (or so many that we basically have to start over)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I thought it was fairly agreed upon that even if a question seems too broad, which this one clearly is, it was best not to encourage the question by answering it. $\endgroup$ – fi12 Mar 24 '16 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ I don't have a problem with broad questions. I think bowlturner did a fine job of answering it. The economic and cultural implications don't matter because we would all die fairly quickly. Human values and morals would be as they always are in such an apocalypse, some people would share the last of their resources and others would steal as many resources as they could, but only for a short time because we all die. $\endgroup$ – ozone Mar 25 '16 at 2:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.