life would continue
the newly opened niches would be filled, but its hard to predict how
domesticated food animals like cows and sheep and chickens would die off
domesticated plants like wheat would die off
2007-02-09 05:14:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by anonacoup 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
> Would the Earth restore itself?
Not sure what that means.
> Would the damage we've done (including global warming) be reversed, or is it too late?
It may be too late. A new equilibrium will come about, but not the same as the old one.
> Would all the endangered animals die without our help, or would they survive?
Many will die out (e.g. birds in Hawaii), because we've introduced new predators into their habitats.
> Would the distribution of animals (population, location) change?
I'd expect domestic cattle and turkeys to become extinct. But many animals will thrive, as feral, in the environments we've introduced them to.
2007-02-09 13:19:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the World would begin to recover instead of continuing its destructive course,
but never would it return to its original state ,we have created too many desserts ,and it needs man ,its labor ,technology and expertese to reverse these processes
mayor natural global disasters like the world coming to a halt and start turning into the other direction ,a mayor Ice Age .or meteor showers which will destroy most of the planet will create the scene for a rebirth or flora and fauna taking millions of years ,but will it be the same .
how much of the flora and fauna was seeded from visitors from space can only be speculated upon
there are two moment in the history of all life when a specie is in danger of exstinction the natural way apart from the disaters already mentioned,and those are when there are to few ,or when there are to many
then today a new posibility is added such as a global nucleor war
2007-02-11 21:09:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, it might not be the same, but the Earth would be sooo much better off. We create more damage to this planet than anything else put together, in fact I would say we create all the damage. Without us, every animal and plant would be better off.
2007-02-09 13:00:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by krazy_chic6944 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nature would surive and the real natural order of things would be restored. Wildlife in the forms of animals, sea life, and vegitation etc would grow and evolve just like it has for millions of years. Global warming is a farce FYI so no change would happen there.
2007-02-09 13:02:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dave 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
of course the earth would restore itself. it would be much better without humans. earth would find its natural balance again. but that would take many hundreds of years, because human impact runs very deep...
2007-02-09 14:01:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ioana M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
nature will compensate for the loss. animals and plants will eventually overgrow cities and a new balance will emerge (not necisserily the same as now)
2007-02-09 12:57:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by mrzwink 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Then you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place
2007-02-09 12:57:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Osita 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing.R.I.P.The Bible would have to be re-written...Giraffes would have to be up to the task..if not chimps..or cockroaches..Kiss It goodbye..it wasn't s'posed to end like this..Face it Now."Who're Gonna Call?"
2007-02-09 13:22:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by kit walker 6
·
0⤊
1⤋