Less conlficts in the world
2006-11-29 06:25:09 · 7 answers · asked by satouqi 3 in Social Science ➔ Economics
No need for sewers would help clean up the ground water supply.
Coach
2006-11-29 06:32:25 · answer #1 · answered by Thanks for the Yahoo Jacket 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You Utopians are full of it. Food has been the limiting factor in the growth of human population for the past million years. Without that limit, humans would have multiplied like rabbits during all that time, and we would have ages ago reached a point where there were people jammed into every nook and cranny of the earth. The skies would be raining men. It would be like a New York subway at rush hour, every square foot of land on the planet. It would be an absolute nightmare.
2006-11-29 07:38:29 · answer #2 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No It will be the self same world except it will be more brutal, & more unabashed. Have you ever seen more peace in non-hungry people? Poverty is a "nice to have" thing to balance out the modern man's conscience -- If there was no need for food, we would even forget about making a pretense of being human.
2006-11-30 21:46:51 · answer #3 · answered by Vaakshri 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All life needs food. Plants need nutrients. Hippies need green stuff.
I don't know of any recent combat caused by want of food, although there have been wars and conflicts caused over access to grazing land and water resources.
2006-11-29 07:30:06 · answer #4 · answered by Mardy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Less pollution. Less wars. Less killings. Less killing the atmosphere. Less everything. We would all be happy and horny.
2006-11-29 06:29:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe, but probably not because alot of conflicts are over things we don't actually need, but we make ourselves believe that we do
2006-11-29 06:32:53 · answer #6 · answered by wafflehouse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there would be a lot less poop.
2006-11-29 06:27:22 · answer #7 · answered by interlude 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋