[Escape Goat]

It would be like Game of Thrones.

[ThatCrazyGuy]

We would build some sea cities somehow? Floating cities or prisons I would dream. And some swimming dinasaurs out there.

It would be like middle earth?

[parrotbeak]

Well if we're assuming that there are no plate tectonics, then there wouldn't be any mountains.

I guess I was thinking it was the same Earth but with humans evolving while the pangaea still existed.

[KillGore]

Europe and Asia are really one land mass and there's tons of diversity.

Isolated countries, but yes if the countries would get isolated then it could also happen

What about and Indian and China?Pretty close, but pretty different.

The Himalayas separate India from the rest of the Continent, they're also isolated. There wouldn't be a lot of mountains in Pangea (considering it'll be one big plate tectonic, so Volcanos are your best bet) so there won't be these natural barriers.

[Beysus]

I'd take a long hike.

[Partial Gamification]

Well if we're assuming that there are no plate tectonics, then there wouldn't be any mountains.

Not neccessarily. How could this have happned?
-Dynamic surface: say that the plates fused and move as one mass.
-Mostly-Static surface: Impact opposite mass or volcanos -although w/o tectonics...
There are surely other ways, this is a hypothetical.

[Vesmir]

Everyone's saying war and whatnot, but pushing that aside:

Geographically there would be larger cities because of the land sprawl (depending on how mountainous the areas are, but human ingenuity is a helluva thing). This might develop into megacities that take place of industrial/commercial centers and living areas such as the suburbs.

Assuming that this land mass covers a large portion of the globe and not just a Pangaeaic landmass with a extremely large ocean, sea travel and development would probably decrease, with fishing industries being the main source of ocean occupation.

Assuming that this land mass is Pangaea with a large ocean cover, once population begins to become unsustainable on the continent, oceanic development would begin. Naturally, oceanic industries would thrive here, not to mention the impact it would have on our cultures.

I love speculation like this, being a Geography major. I could go more into it.

[ZeroRay]

Life as we know it would be completely different. Humans would have a high probability of not existing.

This is the correct answer.

However, if people still existed somehow, there would probably be less variety in cultures as large communities of people in each region would ally with each other for defense.

[Javaman]

Something like that... or at least all continents are stuck together in a single landmass. You know, that map type in Civilization games where it's unavoidable to have a nice army at standby. Does this mean the coastal countries are rich? What about the central countries?

It's hard for me to visualize all the land mass being on one side of the earth and the rest being one solid ocean. I've head the pangaea theory before, but how accurate are the ocean levels on the maps? They may be using todays coastlines for setting the ocean level. Surely there were some chunks of land jutting up elsewhere if the ocean level was lower.

[GatorBait]

We'd either all destroy each other, or we'd transcend beyond our petty differences and move closer to "utopia."

[Tobor]

It would be like Game of Thrones.

There are still multiple continents on that world.

[Boss Doggie]

Ghengis Khan would've ruled the entire world. We'd all be Mongolian.

Him and Atilla.

Fucking Keshiks. Such an overpowered UU.

[Teknoman]

Why would humans have a high probability of not existing? Or do you guys mean humans as they are now?

[Phoenix]

Probably less war and more homogeneity.

Highly unlikely. Contiguous continents have led to more conflict, not less.

[Suairyu]

Compare someone from Japan, Africa and Europe and you'll see a huge difference between them. Compare a Canadian with an American or a Spanish with a Portuguese, not that big of a difference.

Compare someone from France and Spain - huge difference. Compare someone from Russia and China - huger difference. Compare someone from Manchester and Doncaster - hugest difference and a someone's wing mirrors are getting nicked.

[Partial Gamification]

I'm thinking an ice-age, on the super-continent, is going to concentrate the animals in a smaller landmass, into the [sub-] tropics, than was, by geologic history.

[edit:] but then sea-levels drop... no idea about humans.
[edit2:] What do we need for humans? Aboreal mammel -> Open Savanna for Upright walking -> Tools. The Rift Valley sort-of looks like it is there.

[Loofy]

Highly unlikely. Contiguous continents have led to more conflict, not less.

In the beginning sure. Eventually they turn into an america, england, or unified china etc. I doubt theres any chance of a shogun uprising in japan any time soon.

I think it would mean less war, and Ill tell you why. A single continent means less racial differences, or perhaps none at all. Africans, indians, south americans, europeans, middle eastern, and asians probably wouldnt exist. That whole 'us vs them' attitude doesnt work as well when everyone looks the same.

[Boss Doggie]

Hmm... but what if we have pangaea... but humans are as today?

[jakncoke]

Probably less war and more homogeneity.

Yeah right

[Partial Gamification]

Sedentary agricultural practices leads to a growing band of desertification in the equatorial zones, thereby dividing humanity into two groups: the North and the South. Ragnarok, but you don't wake up and fight again another day.

[Nameless]

Why?

Less natural obstacles and distance to travel means lands are inhabited more quickly and in larger volumes. More breeding leads to more competition & conflict. In fact, we likely would have evolved to be more aggressive by necessity. On top of that super-tribes/civilizations would have less time for moral growth before crossing paths with each other.

Who knows though... One constant throughout our history, from the conflict with the Neanderthals to today's War on Terror and everything in between is War=Innovation and considerable leaps forward in technology. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if humans in such a world had reached a higher level of advancement in certain areas than we have.

[Subprime]

Well if we're assuming that there are no plate tectonics, then there wouldn't be any mountains.

Not necesarily. The continents could have just shifted together, which you would assume would create gigantic mountains that are way beyond the scope of what we're used to.

[Loofy]

Less natural obstacles and distance to travel means lands are inhabited more quickly and in larger volumes. More breeding leads to more competition & conflict. In fact, we likely would have evolved to be more aggressive by necessity. On top of that super-tribes/civilizations would have less time for moral growth before crossing paths with each other.

Then that would mean they would have their differences settled in say.. 500 B.C. rather than 2012. So we'd end up being more peaceful?

[themadcowtipper]

Dunkleosteus

[Evolved1]

Far less biological diversity.

[Pizarro]

Less natural obstacles and distance to travel means lands are inhabited more quickly and in larger volumes. More breeding leads to more competition & conflict. In fact, we likely would have evolved to be more aggressive by necessity. On top of that super-tribes/civilizations would have less time for moral growth before crossing paths with each other. Who knows though... One constant throughout our history, from the conflict with the Neanderthals to today's War on Terror and everything in between is War=Innovation and considerable leaps forward in technology. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if humans in such a world had reached a higher level of advancement in certain areas than we have.

You do make very good points. But then again the course of history has several times been decided by fateful encounters.

[Phoenix]

In the beginning sure. Eventually they turn into an america, england, or unified china etc. I doubt theres any chance of a shogun uprising in japan any time soon. I think it would mean less war, and Ill tell you why. A single continent means less racial differences, or perhaps none at all. Africans, indians, south americans, europeans, middle eastern, and asians probably wouldnt exist. That whole 'us vs them' attitude doesnt work as well when everyone looks the same.

Its not the 'label' classifications that cause conflict. Most of our natural issues are caused by resource constraints which are only exacerbated when people are naturally closer to each other - there is less 'friction' for conflict.

[HP_Wuvcraft]

The crossing of the center of Pangaea would make for an epic tale.

Well, now I'm writing that story.

[Devolution]

Probably less war and more homogeneity.

Doubt that. Inter tribal/regional/religious conflicts wouldn't go away.

[Scullibundo]

Well, now I'm writing that story.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=218

[yogloo]

Spiders everywhere.

[Ether_Snake]

So when all of Earth's continents were one, the rest of the planet was just water? Doesn't make sense.

[MIMIC]

less war

So much war.

This

[Vormund]

Surely there were some chunks of land jutting up elsewhere if the ocean level was lower.

I'm sure there would be islands dotted around the earth like there are today.

People would probably fight over that.

[Toodles]

Wouldn't be at all surprised if a landmass of that size would have gotten itself stuck in a somewhat permanent ice-age, what with the cooling feedback loop effect of such a vast amount of white.

[Izick]

It wouldn't have taken the internet for us to feel more at one with each other I'm guessing for one.

[EulaCapra]

Sounds like an opportunity for Gaf to write an epic novel about.

[zethren]

I'd wager there would actually be a more unified human civilization, with a more unified vision and belief system.

I wish the world's continents were still Pangaea.

[KMD]

If everyone looked more alike in such a world, where would I get hot asian girl porn?

idontwanttoliveonthisplanet.jpg

[Nemo]

Hopefully dinosaurs would still exist.

I'd definitely have one as a pet, fuck the police

[SquiddyCracker]

Well, for one, I think we would have "discovered" the world a lot sooner, so technological/social progress might have been ramped up.
On the other hand, without the push to discover using the sea, we might not have discovered optics/goggles/advanced timber building/astronomy(the biggest one), etc.

Also, if people had an easier time coming into contact with one another, we would probably see a lot more periods of intensive warfare and maybe more homogenization as a result of people of this one continent throughout the entirety of human history having an easier time traveling around the world (compared to our world).

[Slayer-33]

Naruto clans lol

[Phoenix]

So when all of Earth's continents were one, the rest of the planet was just water? Doesn't make sense.

Huh? What you said just didn't make any sense. Today outside of the continents, everything else is just water. Why would it be any different if they were all smashed together?

[ReBurn]

I could drive instead of fly. Anywhere.

[Manmademan]

Compare someone from Japan, Africa and Europe and you'll see a huge difference between them. Compare a Canadian with an American or a Spanish with a Portuguese, not that big of a difference. And that would change what then? Mountains would be forming around the edge of the continent but what else?

LOL. not exactly the most valid of arguments. those countries are only about 250 years old or so, and populated entirely by immigrants from elsewhere.

you couldn't even get two random people to even agree what an "American" looks like

[Krispy]

War; war never changes. Though there would be a lot more of it.

[yn-neko hates a cat]

We would find other reasons besides skin color to kill ourselves :)

[Mr. Sandman]

Beach front property would be really expensive.

[Boss Doggie]

Hmm now that I think about it, wouldn't the climate and weather be different? Like, due to the lack of huge seas and oceans between lands (being a single mass of land), there should be some climate change.

[SquiddyCracker]

Hmm now that I think about it, wouldn't the climate and weather be different? Like, due to the lack of huge seas and oceans between lands (being a single mass of land), there should be some climate change.

I think there would be massive storms sweeping in many miles inwards from the massive ocean.