Share.

36 Kommentare

  1. I’m going to have to assume that going from 71% water to 29% would be really bad for life as we know it. Also, those are really more „seas“ than „oceans“ since they are no longer all connected.

  2. copperrocks on

    Finally an interesting map! Love how the ring of fire becomes a ring of ice.

  3. SuperPotatoGuy373 on

    It would be much warmer, and drier. Instead of much of the world being water, it would be mostly arid land.

  4. This is the kind of world map that you’d expect to see in one of those civilization games.

  5. Revolutionary-Swan77 on

    “So obviously all the blue parts are land.” – Buster Bluth

  6. Excuse_my_GRAMMER on

    Woah crazy to even think about

    Would we still have water underground?

    How will a world like this have evolved overtime..

    would we still have dinasours?

    will other extinct human race still be alive?

    Will language evolved the same way as it did for us

  7. I feel like south would be at the top of the maps since there’s more land in the south. It wouldn’t make sense for the place with the most people to be at the bottom.

  8. Emotional-Ebb8321 on

    Someone already did this, and worked through the consequences. The biggest unexpected change is low air pressure over most of the former-ocean would make most of the land surface uninhabitable by current Earth lifeforms. Conversely, at former-coastal regions, the air pressure would be way too high for comfort.

    [http://www.worlddreambank.org/I/INV.HTM](http://www.worlddreambank.org/I/INV.HTM)

  9. SeaworthinessOld2329 on

    The big question I have is, where would you like to live?
    I’m thinking one of the wee islands of Lake Ontario

  10. prousstibat on

    Not having a single river would be a massive change from the world as we know it

  11. hexensabbat on

    I think there would still be many larger land animals a la Jurassic era and humanity would be dramatically concentrated towards shorelines between vast swaths of arid land. Because of the increased scarcity of water I think different groups of humans might have been less likely to interact, and therefore evolved independently rather than condensing together as we have. So those distinct species of humans would be far more different/diverse than the modern variety that exists in homo sapiens today, with different features, extremely different language groups, etc and globalization as we know it would look VERY different. I’m picturing a population density like Australia’s, taken to extremes.

    I live in the Great Lakes region and I think we have a pretty ideal balance of land to fresh water around here. It’s a trip to imagine instead living on the Great Isles and being extremely isolated in the middle of a huge ocean. This is a neat thought experiment!

  12. BloodyPaleMoonlight on

    I’ve always thought this map should be the basis of a D&D setting.

Leave A Reply