Task: Consequences
Come up with an original and creative consequence for the following scenario:
What would be the result if none of us needed food in order to live?

Response: because no need for farmers mean no less jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: food service industry jobs would be gone
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: changes in body functions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: possibly find more alternatives to other "basic needs"
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Hunger would not exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need to kill animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Metabolism might be altered
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Saliva would not be necessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: workers in tyson would be fired
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no need of supplements for weight loss
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no family meals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no energy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people would find something to replace food with
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No cooking
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Overpopulation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No sewers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Individuals who have a passion for food would be lost
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: low SES would be changed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Politics would change when the poor people change in number (either more or less)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Schools may offer more curriculum over what was the "lunch hour"
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: some drug companies would go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Bee population may be affected more than it already is (for good or bad)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Primary and secondary schools would need less of your child's time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Old age homes would be different, not needing to provide nutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: nobody would have to do dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people wouldn't have to go grocery shopping
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be no food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No food as enjoyment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The animal foodchain unbalance
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more land available for development
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no bowel movements
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need to kill animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no cooking shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No dead animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: holidays will be different
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no bathrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no food poisoning
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less need for doctors
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No hunger problems in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would be robots
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no need for grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for a digestive system
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: bad economy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less cultural depth
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be no world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Financial blow
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More productivity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less division between the have's and have not's, somewhat of an equalizer
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less stress over weight
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no starving children/adults
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no weight loss plans (weight watchers, etc.)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no complete nutrition stores, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less jobs in restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no death from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for doctors to travel to foreign countries
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: a lot of plants gone
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no hunger pangs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less tooth decay
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no food network or any cooking channel
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no Thanksgiving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fewer jobs - a lot of people work in grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less time spent with your family. Thanksgiving would be different as well as really any holiday
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be fewer deaths during genocides I guess because so many people died of starvation.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Save the environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more diet related health issues
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more culinary arts
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Mood swings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No starving people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Not hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need to go to the bathroom or digest foods
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Thanksgiving dinner wouldn't exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No grocers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no weight loss programs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No weightloss or weightgain programs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No nutrionist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: family time would not include making meals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no large grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: first dates would have to revoke around something else besides dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no such thing as lactose intolerant or celiac disease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Solve world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Holidays aren't as fun (no sweets)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More land for people to live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Reduce carbon emissions (no cows/farming/etc)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Thanksgiving would drastically change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: a bunch of people would be out of jobs working in the food business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need to worry about nutrition.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: saves space in house
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for weight loss programs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: you lose the need to have to go to the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: o need for expensive litchen utilities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No time spent cooking
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less greenhouse gases from vehicles
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more space for dishes.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no work for the farmer
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: end world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Higher world population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Holidays would change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We wouldn't have to rely on people for food services
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Animals could disappear or survive longer if they weren't being hunted
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be nothing to do because everything would be done
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: servers not needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: save animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no going out to eat for dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less energy (I'm not sure on this one, depends if we have another energy source)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no thanksgiving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no killing of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: smaller service sector economy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: better teeth health
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no health problems related to food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for animals to be slaughtered
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: social gatherings revolving around drinks?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: animals would have enough food and land to live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Could get more work done because no breaks are necessary to eat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Work more hours to make money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Family dinners wouldn't be a thing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Culture would lose an aspect
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More land available
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Poverty could be eradicated, but wouldn't
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Better oral health
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no need for walmart
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Decline in health issues due to obesity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less time spent amongst families around kitchen table
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Loss of jobs for farmers and grocers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Need for new hobbies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No cooking shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No important holidays (or significant changes made)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No religions (or with significant changes made)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Wouldn't have to go to the bathroom as much or nearly at all
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The world wouldn't be as polluted because there wouldn't be any need for plastic containers for food productions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Food network would no longer exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Won't be as strong
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: There would be less suffering from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less allergic reactions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More trees since people wouldn't need to destroy forests for farmland
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No food culture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No Thanksgiving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Our bodies would be different since we would no longer need a stomach or intestines
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No longer need salivary glands
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: "Sausage Party" movie wouldn't exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no malnutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more productivity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: better dental hygiene
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No animals would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No one would suffer from hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers would lose their ability to make money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less cleaning
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Larger populations of everything
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: increased animal population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need to use the toilet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more animals would live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more peace
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Animals would get to keep their lives
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Live longer without getting obese
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Don't have to use the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More animals.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Stomach pain
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Toilets don't exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: different versions of breakfast lunch and dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: new house styles
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: End world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Agriculture would be irrelevant--the land would probably be used for industry--increase in pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more strict diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more competition of other jobs,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no hunger around the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: would not have to go to the bathroo
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no cavaties
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Houses would be smaller (see No. 5)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less CO2 emission
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to go to the bathroom, so bathrooms would be smaller
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less fires
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less electricity needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: unnecessary accidents on the roads due to excess of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less destroying natural crops
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more Food Network and all of its shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Loss of culture through different foods
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to kill animals for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: flying
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no world hunger problems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no worry about going on a diet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more starving countries
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More building space for other companies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more allergic reactions such as nuts
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No dieting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No pills to gain/lose weight
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Food may become a measure of one's wealth if not necessarily needed. For example, the items that people may still want, like sushi, but do not really need would only be purchased by the wealthy, who can waste their money on things like that.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: I think people would get more drunk when they go out because food may not be offered
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Fewer animals would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Degrade of digestive systems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: small amount of delicious food will still be taken for fun and happiness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: weak human relationship (no more having meal together)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Increasing sex rates or sleeping times
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: a higher amount of animals which could mean that the ratio of animals to people would be to large with animals and the animals could run us out
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no need to meal plan
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no need for dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for thinking about food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: starvation around the world would end
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for construction in restrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for lunch during school, kids could learn more
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for public or private restrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for upset stomachs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Culture would lose a big piece of itself
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would not be any Anthropological findings for food preference, which links us to our past
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: less social gatherings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more time to study
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more sex
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no longer need dietary aids
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we wouldn' t necessarily need the digestive organs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we wouldn' t need bathrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no diners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less space taken up in kitchen
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more space for living
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No cooking channels
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less things to do
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: overpopulation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people wouldn't bond over meals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: maybe less of some animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would have to find something else to do on a date
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would have more land to use since no farmers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: wouldn't have to go to the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: wouldn't have to brush our teeth as often
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: wouldn't need bile
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: wouldn't need nutritionists
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Time to find other activities to occupy the extra hours available
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Extra space available for growth in cities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more animals living
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less people hurt
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less deaths due to hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Values and traditions would change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: starvation would not be a problem
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: would save a lot of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no bad diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: supermarkets would go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Millions of acres of land would go to waste
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Self-esteems may rise
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No doing dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would be out of business from farmers to grocery store employee to locally owned businesses.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: party all night
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Avoid hassle of grocery shopping
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Avoid health problems from eating unhealthy foods
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Avoid having to please others with your cooking
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Children wouldn't die of hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We could redirect our energy somewhere else besides hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No nutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more natural land and less businesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: what would we do with our lives? no friends-everyone is always bored so we go eat. Would we go for a walk instead?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no hair etc (not enough vitamins and such)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: rotting skin
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Starvation wouldn't be an issue
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no overeating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people won't go hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Never have lunch dates again
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for livestock
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for bathrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Would not need a break room at work anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More animals if we aren't eating them
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Larger wild animal populations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The low paying job of being a waiter would be gone
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Eating for pleasure
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for a digestive system
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Designated places for conversations that are focused around enjoying artwork or a performance rather than eating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no food shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would be out of jobs; ie farmers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Kitchens in houses would be just another room. Future houses/ living spaces may be more expensive if they don't include a kitchen.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Assuming that we're given this ability at the present time. not that we've had it for many years, then television and obesity rating might start to slowly decline. People often munch on snacks when they're watching the t.v/phone and not having that need may decrease the number of people leading unhealthy lifestyles.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: fill more time and effort towards drugs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less world wide hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no family dinners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No diseases related to excess or not enough food consumption
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for dietitians
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more lots for other stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't be hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animals around
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No death occurring from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for weight programs like weight watchers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less pollution from factories, cars, farming machinery, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less stress about wondering how to pay for your next meal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less use of the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: People probably would have developed the habit of eating their feelings.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: the economy would fall apart as people that didn't have jobs anymore wouldn't afford the cost of living, even with not having to pay for food.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: World hunger wouldn't exist anymore, which will increase population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: could open opportunities for those who would now have a longer lifespan
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more raising animals to kill
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more parks because no more farm land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less dependence on other countries for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more flossing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more spaces to build
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: a lot less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: health care would be a lot cheaper because a lot less health problems related to diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no eating delicious food?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no starving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no energy?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: photosynthesis?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No more killing animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: survival in wars or space wouldnt be as strenuous
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No more growing fruits/veggies for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more killing animals for food-animal population grows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: different type of happiness (some of us get happiness from eating)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Possibly less happiness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: People might be healthier (less of the population would be over weight)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need to solve world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: worry about money less
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: change the way our modern sewage systems work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: higher rates of alcoholism
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more family meals and talking over a meal.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for dieting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more consumer need for animal slaughter
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Holidays such as Thanksgiving become largely irrelevant
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be excess livestock and animals because we would not have to hunt and slaughter for food.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no ceilias disease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more wildlife
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no supermarkets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dinner and a movie dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no pizza‚Ä¶ WHAAATT???
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: people would not worry about being hungry, especially those in third world countries (i.e end world hunger)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people would never get hangry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: productivity and happiness would increase
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Loss of jobs in food industry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: a lot less social interactions/meetings over dinner, lunch, or breakfast
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more dieting.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Room for more hobbies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More occupied
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Gas price would rise
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Higher electricity bills
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: world hunger would end
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: world hunger solved
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less angry people = less wars= world peace
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no more fears of a zombie apocalypse
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No need to know how to cook
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no need to murder animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no food stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need to domesticate animals such as cows, pigs, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more exercising
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Grocery stores go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people wouldn't go on dinner dates anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no man, woman, or child going hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: save money on cook books
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: saving animals that would have been killed for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No starving children/people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Everyone would be the same
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Greater equality in some ways
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less jobs for those who are in the culinary fields
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for cleanness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Animals would thrive more
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Grocery stores would be obsolete
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No animals would be harmed for eating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The daily caloric intake wouldn't matter
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: problem of world hunger solved
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more land available for other purposes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more groceries stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more time for work, hobbies, and activities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more "world hunger" issues
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more starving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need people that work at animals or food economy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Save environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No culinary TV show
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for livestock/pets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less money in the economy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Social development may suffer because humans no longer come together for meals and rest
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Depending on the society either a loss or gain in family time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more or reduced destruction to forests that would have been plowed for farmland
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Ramsey Gorden and Rachel Ray wouldn't be famous
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No wars over natural resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Humans and most animals particularly primates would not have the ability to distinguish the color red
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: less family time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less animal abuse
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No such thing as world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more hangry people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less electricity usage
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Less flushing of toilet means more saving more water
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: World Peace
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No more starving people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Food would still be enjoyed for taste
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No starvelings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Will lose many green plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: nutritionist would not be a job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Diet wouldn't exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no government programs to help people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less farm animals being killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Increased productivity from lack of hunger and lack of breaks needed to eat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be less pollution from those mega corporations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Body image would improve because there would be no socioeconomic tie to it
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Less war over resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More concentration on academics and ideas and art because of more time and resources available
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Farmers in India wouldn't be committing suicide because of debt accrued to Monsanto and other seed corporations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Feudalism wouldn't have ever existed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: People would live in more parts of the world earlier in history because they don't need food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: increased productivity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Animals would no longer be slaughtered
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less land needed for farms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Gas stations wouldn't sell food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: possibly live forever
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: There would be no grocers because they supply all the food that we buy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less health problems related to food consumption
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less need for dieticians
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More materialistic incentives in school and work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Water would be in high demand
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: loss of grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: new activitites to spend time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need for a dining room table (or fridge, dish washer, or kitchen in that matter)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less land usage
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: starvation effects would be irreverent
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: far less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Loss of jobs for people who make food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less use for certain animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no obesdity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: have more land to use
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be a lot more animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be no dietitians
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Do not need animal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need to cook
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: wouldn't have to go the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no communication
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no harm to environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less time with family (usually eating is when the family gets together and talks)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: save gas going to grocery store
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Less family time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No grocery stores.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less stress about money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: People will be less irritated (hunger makes people irritated and angry)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More space available to build other things since grocery stores and restaurants are gone
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less family time eating dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The world's population would skyrocket
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less social outings (diners, lunch meetings, etc)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less cows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less gatherings based off food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More land for trees and nature, not corn
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More land space because 99% of business is restaurants/grocers/pudding factories
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more drunks probably
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No one would know who Chef Boyardee is
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: world would be overrun by insects
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Hopefully less hicks
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Less acne
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No Bill Hader's SNL skit about aiding Africa
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: many individuals would lose their jobs (chefs, restaurant workers, etc.)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no world hunger (this is a good thing)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: the price of currency may increase
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: a lot of peeing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: lost jobs - farmers, supermarkets, grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more malnutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No allergic reactions occurring due to food items
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less money to be made by workers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: food companies wouldn't exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more deaths from food human population increases
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farm animals become less useful to the planet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less of a drive for poor people to work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: personally I'd be angry all the time because food is my favorite thing, that's all I got
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: agriculture would no longer be necessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more cabinet space
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more cooking shows on tv
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no ingestive allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: our bodies would fail
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No one would go hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Save money on food related appliances
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: holidays will be different, such as thanksgiving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: employees not paid as much
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: increased work productivity
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less air and land pollution from farms and factories
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less air pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less deaths
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no social stigmas about fat and skinny
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Affect global economy and domestic economies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Bears wouldn't attack houses in Alaska because the people wouldn't have food in the trash
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Less dying of hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Economy would suck
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Save the land that would've been used for farming
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more Rachel Ray
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: You wouldn't have to go to pretentious restaurants and pretend your pate is really tasty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No world starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No needing to go to the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Tastebuds may evolutionarily change if they are not used
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no dinner/lunch dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no going to the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no cooking
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no doing dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more dinner parties
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Taste buds probably would disappear through evolution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: People who ate food would be like drug addicts
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Number of animals would increase
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less options for "dates"
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no food or cooking related jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no use for trees
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: wouldn't have people over for dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: gas stations would only have gas
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: wouldn't go out to eat with friends anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: thanksgiving and other holidays would be a lot different
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: wouldn't go to the bathroom anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: the food industries are unnecessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no use for plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for workers at food places
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no culinary culture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less exercising
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: With less storage needed for food we'd have more room in towns and cities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No one is starving to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No sickness caused by food (food poisoning, salmonella)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: eliminate diseases related to unhealthy diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No contemplation about what to eat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no food network
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be overpopulation of animals in the wild (cows, chickens, etc.)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: solve the problem of world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: technology would be more advanced
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: people turned into robots
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: never use the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less dentist visits
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: there would be no food network channel
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there wouldn't be a Cheesecake factory
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: poverty would go down
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: would we even need to brush our teeth?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less CO2/ greenhouse emissions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no servers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be no dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less bonding with people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Conversations over food are irrelevant
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Excess of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More food for animals pending they need food still
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No dates involving food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Economy bettering in some areas
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More technology
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No Hangry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Thanksgiving would be a different holiday
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Might have more consumption of water?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No food chain/ everyone is equal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Possibly no wild animal killing humans
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Teeth would be healthier
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Trick or Treat would not exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no starvations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: family time and social events wouldn't be surrounded around food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More value in shelter
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: With the shelter possibility, people might be more inclined to stay indoors
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Both genders might be physically equal in strength and athleticism
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Jesus would not have turned water into wine
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Mendell might not have made a breakthrough in genetics, since there would be no need for a pea garden or gardening of any kind
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Our speech would be impaired due to the lack of teeth, we might not communicate as effectively
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Religion probably wouldn't exist since we don't have teeth or a need to communicate
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Since this basic need is no longer in existence, more people would be higher in Maslow's hierarchy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: The band,The Dead Milkmen, would go by another name since they wouldn't know what a milkman was
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Without the need for communication or speech, we might be extremely less intelligent than we are now
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Without the spread of disease, no need for communication or food, people might be eternal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Women would not have breasts since they are used to feed children
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: there wouldn't be as many family get togethers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people couldn't turn to food for emotional support
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less people dying from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more animals overall
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less casual places to meet people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more fish population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Killing less animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more need for restrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more need for toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need to know how to cook
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: Possible extinction of animals that have felt strong effects of selection for food production (ie cows, chicken, pigs)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Massive amounts of space used for food development can be repurposed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Possible elimination of sleep due to cells basically no longer responding to time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Production of certain personal smell cans that contain the fragrances of food that you enjoy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: You could now scuba dive without oxygen
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No essential parts of culture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fast food workers would be out of a job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Health shops would close
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no going out to eat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less festivities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No diet-related illnesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for food shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less manmade change to land and ecosystems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less stress on ecosystems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Animal population growth, with lack of human killing animals for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: cabinet space
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more space on earth
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no breakfast/lunch/dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no more diets,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more natural environments
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: food chain out of control
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: humans could be come the hunted instead of hunters
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Don't have to wash dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No diets/fad diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Thanksgiving would we weird
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Would free up a lot of land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Bodily functions would be different; digestion, metabolism, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: taste buds would probably evolve
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no diets,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animals would be alive
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Smaller kitchens
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: malnutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: farmers would go broke if no one is buying food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The farming and agriculture industry would become obsolete eliminating millions of jobs and causing mass numbers of unemployment.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: don't need toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: would not need a digestive system
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: animals wouldn't be killed as much
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no rest stops
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Higher population of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Nutritionists and dietitians would be out of jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No family dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No going out to eat (social engagements)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more technology because more money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: plants would continue to flourish
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: land use would be used up for construction
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: depression towards being obese wouldn't be a thing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Abundance of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animals would live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No fighting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less time spent eating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no restaurant jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more agriculture pollution from meat consumption
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less deforestation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: farmers create and maintain food and live stock which is surprisedly difficult to accomplish
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be a huge population of animals around
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no one would probably exercise unless you like to
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for restrooms?
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for nutritionist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no breakfast, lunch or dinner plans.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no dinner party's
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more space for other businesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farmers or people who takes part in food industry lose jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No killing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more animals being killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more cooking network
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less death due to malnutrition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No arguing about what to eat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No stomach disease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: People would no longer die of starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Many food centered traditions would fall apart and out of use
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No longer worry of food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: possible over population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we would never go to the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we would be like robots
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: hundreds of channels decicated to food would no longer be aired
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no crops
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More trees
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: "movie and dinner" date would change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no cashiers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No income for farmers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Climate change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: National debt
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Dust bowl
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: No need of dieting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Not have an upset stomach
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: dinner dates will no longer exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: animal population explosion
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: certain holidays might not be as special because they are missing the foods that are associated with them
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be a lot of open land since there would be no more restaurants or grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less truck drivers needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no allergy to food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: end to world hunger!
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers become unemployed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: resturaunts and grocery stores close
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: save space
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: many truckers become unemployed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Increased animal populations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No hunger (death from hunger, etc.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Increased animal habitats
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more defecation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Nobody starves
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: 10 no killing of animals for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: wouldn't have a reason for family dinners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: way less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: depression because food makes people happy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Chefs and waitresses jobless, restaurants out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No distraction due to hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Stores like Walmart significantly decrease in size
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Nutritionists, etc. jobless
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More animals on earth
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no jobs for chefs, waiters or hosts
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be no more cooking.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: People would have less energy for physical activity.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Walmart would have to down size
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: You would have to find another reason to gather friends and family
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No grocerery centers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: not markets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be no world war
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Holidays would lose their food-related traditions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: People wouldn't die of starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No digestion problems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No toilets needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to cooking program
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Don`t need toilet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Lose of an interesting part of life
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less to no wars caused by disputes over ariable territory
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No need for alcohol consumption
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No more breakfast, lunch, and dinner time in school or at home or anywhere else
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: Lots of uncultivated land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No hunger pains
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more bathroom trips for #2
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less opporutnity for poor dental check ups
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No bugs coming in the house after food was left out
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more cows, chickens, pigs, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dishwashing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no Food Channel
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: empty easter baskets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more equality
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No one would be starving.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less family time (family dinners)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less reality/competitive cooking shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less time spent in the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less to buy at the store
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no weight loss plans
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: vanishing ethnic customs/traditions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no hunger pains
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: reduced grouchiness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be no more food network.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No animals would be needed for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be alot more animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there will be no life
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: wouldn't have tree's for shade
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No diet plans
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more food networks
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more weight loss pills
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Save more animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no family time at dinner tables
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more meal time conversation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: possibly no more thanksgiving/other holiday dinners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less animals being killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less habitats destroyed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less numerous reasons for war
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: people would actually have to find other ways to celebrate events
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: world hunger would be solved
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: protect the environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: save places for buildings rather than planting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: worry more about work to get done
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more family dinner time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more killing animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more holiday meals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Changes in digestive system
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less wars
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: teeth would not be needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No need for toilet bowls or urinals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: loss of family time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for plumbers or plumbing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No longer friends with Hy-Vee on Facebook
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: less chances of civil wars of commodities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No need to kill to much
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would stop living
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Then would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: fewer plumbers, no clogged toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: irrigation companies cease to exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: The nature will be affected because there will be less green plant for photosynthesis
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: weakening our digesting organs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to use the restroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less personal connections
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would be a little more dull as an international society
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Less dinner parties
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less weight problems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for toilets etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Oral health could change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Can't take your significant other on a dinner date
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need to go number two in the restroom.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No dinner time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No need for mealtimes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No need for grocery stores.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for large fields of corn or beans.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No starvation or hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Far less pollution all together
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Exercise and fitness businesses will have far less business because there won't be any overeating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no livestock
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no grocers.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be more space in the world as restaurants wouldn't be needed.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: This would cause a decrease in pollution and space in landfills.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No starvation for humans
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: refridgeration no longer necessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: poor people immediately less disadvantaged
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: fuel prices would decrease from falling demand, making everything else cheaper
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: increase in animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more wild animal and plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no lunch, dinner, breakfast, brunch dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no lunchable companies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: infinite energy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: candy sales would increase
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: increase in animal population
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more food born illnesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: better at sports
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: minimal self- image issues
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: very minimum wars would break out
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more land available for buildings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people would need to find more ways to interact socially
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no designated eating times, (breakfast, lunch, dinner)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: less animals would be killed for meat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less food poisoning
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more happiness of not starving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more food borne illnesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more need for bathrooms
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Nobody could starve to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Abundance of resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Could use farmland for something else
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No starving children or adults in the US or other countries
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More land because there wouldn't be any farmers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Probably no landfill
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no nutritien problems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be no need for cattle, or other animal farms.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would possibly be no need for dieticians
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More land for building.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less social time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: dates wouldn't consist of going to dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dying of starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: vegetation would most likely be eliminated for building
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more breakfast, lunch, and dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No need for breasts on women since babies would not need milk.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Fewer diet fads
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Restaurant workers loss of jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Save money on diet pills
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: different alternatives for socialization
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: dates would be potentially awkward
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be less communication in families
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more food network
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No thanksgiving, christmas, or easter dinner/lunch/breakfast
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fishes would be happy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No need for a diegestion system
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't have eneregy, most of it comes from foodmost of it comes from food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no thanks giving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no laws
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no need for chopsticks
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: An extra room in every home
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fewer tables and chairs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no outings involving dinners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: change in holiday/ social traditions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: better healthcare
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: more animals would be alive
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More animals inthe world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: little to no animal killing for food products
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no focus on appearances, issues that dont matter
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more of a focus on the sciences, religion, philosophy, space exploration, the arts-- essentially anything that human beings can explore further and create
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: not as much traffic
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Stock market crash due to the alteration in the monetary flow of food-stuffs and their distribution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The number of depressed, slightly overweight, women would drastically decrease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: binging parties would start in which it was normal to eat, purge, eat, purge.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: The theoretical effects of global warming would be decreased
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Eating would be a luxury
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Animals would become an abundance
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Walmarts half the size
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More power, less fridge energy needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: More money to spend in other areas.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no starvation.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Many family traditions would need to be altered.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The importance of eating together as a family would be eliminated.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: will not go out!
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be more natural resources and less electricity used
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No more meals.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No social situations surrounding food.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No use for toilets.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No companies manufacturing toilets.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No toilets, etc at public places, just rooms with sinks for washing up.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no need to slaughter helpless animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: lost food cultures
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: population will grow faster
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people will miss the old time
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: part of human body might be robort
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Any one at all connected with food would lose their job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Millions of people wouldn't die from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Don't have to go to the grocery store
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more land available
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more forests around the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: modern biology would be all wrong
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: our former crop fields would be filled with different stuff
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more shows like on food network
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Holiday traditions would change because many focus on food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No ag industry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more time to do hobbies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dieticians or nutritionists
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: animals would be alive
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no war
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: The environment would be more clean
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more land devoted to other industries other than restaurants or the food industry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more money devoted to increasing standard of living
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more resources devoted to solving world issues
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: We would spend more money on electronics and little things
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would sleep better
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Farmers out of work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less war
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Farmers would be unemployed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no one would live in hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We wouldn't have to cook.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No hungry people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No supermarkets or restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No one would cook
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no animals killed for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: better opportunities for people in poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less pollution from transportation of food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farmers would be out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers would be out of work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more money to spend on gifts
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more money to put towards education
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: animals could live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would engage in more creative activities on dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: some people would be ecstatic (me!)
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: different social activities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: starvation would not happen
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: fewer emissions
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: global warming would stop
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to have meals throughout the day
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No need to brush our teeth
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Starvation would become extinct
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More work would get done
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Wouldn't have kill animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more weight loss products
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more enjoying a good steak
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No grocery markets.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No indigestion.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No orifice for expelling.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: No teeth.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: animals wouldn't be killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: toilets may not be necessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more going out to dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less resources for the planet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: taking down more forest
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need of cooking
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no health issues related to food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need of restaurants and coffee shops
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would have more time to work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would probably all be alcoholics.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Significantly less starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be an increase in some animal populations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be less stress on our natural environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be more open spaces and less farmland
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would not need agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Starvation would end.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: More land would be preserved.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be less water and soil pollution as the result of agriculture.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no more grocery store
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less sense of culture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: a lot of farmers would be out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no dying from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no one would go hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no diet-related disease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to eat meat
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less pollution from farming
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: HUNGER WOULD END WORLDWIDE
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: grocers would go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would not need grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less people fighting
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less wars
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: redistribution of land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: conservation would improve
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: boredom and depression possible
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less war
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no need to slaughter animals,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: and animals wouldn't be killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Lunch breaks would be used for something else
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: food companies go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: less animal slaughter
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less war over resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: People wouldn't go out to dinner.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Would no longer enjoy different cuisines.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: the name poverty would became meaningless
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Grocery stores would go out business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: world hunger would no longer be an issue.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be few farms, they would be out of a job.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no malnutrition.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would have to find different family times/ways to bring families together.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't need to go to the bathroom as much.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no one would be starving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there wouldn't be restaurants or cooks
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people who work in food service would be out of work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people wouldn't starve,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Some wars would not be fought
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: dieting would be useless
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: get more sleep
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: there would be no agticulture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: animals wouldn't need to be slaughtered for food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: the environment would be cleaner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farms and restaurants would go out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Grocery stores would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would not have dinner parties
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: World hunger would end.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers would need new jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we don't have to spend time thinking about, preparing, or shopping for food freeing up our minds to be more productive in other areas
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: due to lowered methane gas, climate change is slowed down
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people in poverty suddenly have one less thing to worry about financially and that money could be put towards other things
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: the amount of methane gas lowers as livestock numbers decrease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Do more work.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Increase productivity.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: grocery stores would close
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No cooking is needed.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: I think most of the activities of the world will be stop because everyone doing something for their bread and butter and all the inventions or other creative activity either stop or dead slow because people not needed food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no one would starve
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would not ingest and develop diseases due to poor diet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no person goes hungry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Food production would not be a category contributing to global warming
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more stomach aches
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be a lot less pollution in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we woudl not have upset stomachs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be less starvation.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would get more things done.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be less poverty.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no romantic dinners
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no worry of getting the right nutrients
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There will be no vegetable plants and crops
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would not need to diet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we wouldn't have grocery stores or restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: polluting farms would let off less pollution
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farmers would have to change their jobs.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No grocery stores would be needed.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: but also less starving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: engaging in social activity over a shared meal would be obsolete
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there would be no more grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farming would drastically decrease this would limit erosion
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Reduction in greenhouse gases and global warming.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: couples would no longer go to restaurants on dates.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Farmers and ranchers wouldn't exist as a career.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we would all have more time for other hobbies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: world hunger would not be a problem
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: dating activities would possibly be more active
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more hours to socialize
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: end to the world hunger crisis
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more starving children
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No one would have to cook.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: Farmers would lose their job.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would not need to kill animals.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers would be unemployed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: trees would only be for decor
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: we would no longer need to take breaks at work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: loss of income for farmers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more world hunger problem
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: millions of acres of farm land would be available for other use, ie plant trees, build homes, etc
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: much less waste produced/landfills not fill up as quickly
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more inhumane treatment of livestock animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Many fast food workers would lose their jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: fewer cows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: improved environment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be less of a chance to sit around the table as a family
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The animal population would get out of control
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would have more land to develop more buildings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more people dying from starvation.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would have vastly different hobbies, rather than socializing around food.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would have different hobbies at the movie theater (instead of popcorn and candy).
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Crashing of livestock and agricultural commodities
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: meals would no longer be a shared social experiences;
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: demand for food-keeping/cooking appliances such as refrigerators and microwaves could evaporate;
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: television shows such "The Great British Bake Off" might no longer exist;
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be no Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas dinner;
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: More work would be done
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people wouldn't have to be on a diet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: there wouldn't be hunger in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more land to live
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: world would fill up with random animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no glorious bacon
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: less people dying
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Restaurants would not exist, so there wouldn't be a need for waiters, waitresses, bus boys
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farmers out of work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: stores close
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: fields empty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: less damage to the planet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more people
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: farmers would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would no long have to kill animals.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Land dedicated to farming and animals could be converted back to real nature, or used in another application
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Food would become rare and only the rich or prominent would be able to get their hands on it
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: We apparently will grow leaves and roots because all we need for survival is photosynthesis
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: Farmers would be out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Grocery stores would close.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People wouldn't be so grouchy because they are hungry.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Animal population would grow exponentially
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: our country would deteriorate
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no longer need diets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we wouldnt need grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more time to work out
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more time with family
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for toilet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there will be no need to cook food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No more poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: lack of nutrients to have the energy
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we wouldnt need any meal times at all
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: we wouldnt need to have nutritionists
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: End of starving problems
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: never had starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No one would starve to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There possibly might be an abundance of animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less chickens
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less global warming
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people will not have to use the bathroom
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no harmful chemicals polluting the air
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Less animals would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for cattle.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for grocery store or restaurants.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Pollution would decrease.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we'd have way more land and money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: because fewer animals farmed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farms would go bankrupt
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no animals would be killed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no human would be killed because of hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no vegetation would be needed to grow
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more space to build instead of growing vegetables
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would not experience the dining scene
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Wouldn't have to take the time to eat or do dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less childhood sickness in 3rd world countries
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Would not starve to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more cooking.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: no grocery shop
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no malnutrition death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: first dates wouldn't be dinner and a movie anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: grocery stores would be out of business
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: nobody will die of hunger in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There will be no scarcity of food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Maybe poverty wouldn't even exist
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be a lot more green in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't have to have restrooms or restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: People would be much more focused on sex
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: would not have meal times
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: farming would not be an occupation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no one would be hungry ever
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: collapse of the agriculture industry
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would throw away the toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need for restaurants or grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People would no longer starve to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would not use the bathroom.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Mcdonald would no longer exists
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more reality tv cooking shows
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: create new social events to replace eating out
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need for agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: loss in jobs for farmers.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need for doctors who specialize in obesity.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: People would no longer work on fields
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: For the holidays people would no longer gather for dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: If there is no food intake people won't go to the bathroom either
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No vegetables
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need of vessels
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Possibly less time spent with family
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we could preserve more land.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farm animals would have no purpose and have to be destroyed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: fields and farms would revert to housing and green space
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fat people would kill themselves more often.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: no need for food markets .
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Dishes would stay clean
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no point in asking people to dinner
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Thanksgiving would no longer be a thing
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Agriculture would die completely
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: grocery stores would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would lose the social aspect of sitting down for meals with others but perhaps that could be replaced by something else
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would never be concerned with being hungry, listening to our bellies, perhaps not having to go on a diet to lose weight
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No over-farming of resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: MORE LAND TO PRODUCES MATERIALS OTHER CONSUMABLE GOODS.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: MORE PRODUCTIVITY TO COMPLETE TASKS.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: WOULD LOWER EACH PERSONS CARBON FOOTPRINT.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: NO MORE STARVING COUNTRIES, EVERYONE IS ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD SO TO SPEAK.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: NO RELIANCE ON OTHER COUNTRIES TO SHARE THIER FOOD SOURCES WITH OURS.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: People who make food and they whole supplychain would lose their jobs and businesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would not be anyone starving in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no more allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no enjoyment of eating
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: land could be used for other things
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to work hard
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no death due to starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no vitamin deficiencies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no need to cook,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: Fewer animals killed.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less trips to the bathroom.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Stores would be much smaller (no grocery section).
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The world would be a cleaner place to live.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would not have to stop what we are doing to get food.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: All animals would be alive
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more productivity since food is not needed as an energy source
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: food service workers would be unemployed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: food culture" would fade away
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be no grocery stores.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be no need for diet books.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: produce sections in supermarkets would feature clothes instead
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Reduction in carbon emissions;
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would have not been the need to kill animals for meat, cutdown plants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: All of the farmers would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be less poverty
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people wouldn't starve to death
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Grocery chains and restaurants would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Many farmers and manufacturing companies would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: hospitals and health clinics might not be so busy.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: increase in animal use for entertainment
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no harm to plants/vegetation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no jobs at grocery stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: ANyone in the restaurant business would be out of a job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Farmers wouldnt have a job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Grocers wouldnt have a job
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: forests would regrow
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: art might replace restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: we wouldn't have taste buds or teeth
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: we would not survive since food is the most important thing for us
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: animals are not killed,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more supermarket
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less sickness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: get more work done.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: WE WOULD GET ALONG ALOT WORSE CAUSE NO ONE WOULD NEED ANYONE ELSE
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Earth would be much more abundant, lush, and green since animals and other creatures would be the ones eating any available food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Our time would also be freed up for intellectual and creative pursuits
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Social inequality would be reduced
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: illnesses would probably subside because there would be no food-borne illness
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we could eat whatever we wanted
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no one would need to defecate, so restrooms would change
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: the economy is drastically changed because restaurants and much of the logistics network becomes pointless
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: people would be on a more equal footing because malnutrition no longer exists, and all children would develop more equally
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: survival situations would be much easier
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: We would not get sick from eating too much food or tainted foods
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't have to take time to prepare meals.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: We wouldn't have to wash the dishes anymore.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: I would have more money and less kitchen to clean up
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: climate change would go away
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: more animals to feed.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: and less pollution from factories as well
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No need to prepare food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: No one would die from starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: would change how the land is used
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be much more free land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: the family would develop into  different unit
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: food would just be showing off
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no farm animals
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No grocery store
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no sewers
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: There would be no need for supermarkets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need to slaughter Animals,
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more animals on planet
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: poverty would be eliminated
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: land could be more utilized for buildings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no thanksgiving meal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no cookies for santa
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more dinner dates
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more fancy restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more Thanksgiving
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No grocery stores or restaurants
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: possibly even greater overpopulation.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Probably no toilets.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: There would be greater natural areas, no fields.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: With no need for digestive system, smaller bodies and fewer medical issues.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: loss of jobs in agriculture and food services
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: environment might be cleaner because no livestock is needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: increase in many animal populations
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no need to worry about food allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: potential better dental hygiene
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: regular supermarkets would go out of business.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people would take less breaks at work.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: refridgerators would no longer be mass produced.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: with disposable income increase people would buy more luxuries.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: advertising firms would lose accounts.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Social activities would change a lot
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: no more agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: time will be saved that was initially used to prepare food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we wouldn't use very many plastic grocery bags
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: We would have more land
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We wouldn't need to use the restroom as much
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: no doing the dishes
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Way more animals would be alive
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No foodborne illnesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: dont worry about price hike
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we can do more work
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: planet would be destroyed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: people would suffer from fewer allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we would find new ways to socialize
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: another form of comfort would have to be found for stressful times
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: no more hunger-related or malnutrition related deaths
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Fewer Grocery Stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: There would be lots of farmland available for other things.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: We would probably over populate the earth even more than we do now.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: farmers would lose money
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: grocery stores would become obsolete.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: more free time means stronger families.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be less sickness.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: snack foods or pleasure foods consumption would increase.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: There will be no more world hunger
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: People will not have indigestion
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we'd have a scarcity of whatever we DID need
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: MORE ANIMALS SINCE NOT BEING USED FOR FOOD
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Starvation would not be a world problem
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less waste of resources
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: we'd be more efficient
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Cooking shows would become entertainment only
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we'd have more time for sex
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Livestock and crop agriculture would not be needed and all of the massive world infrastructure around it.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The stomach and intestines would not be needed and could be removed on birth eliminating the risk of many diseases.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: hunger shortage would not be an issue.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No need of agriculture then
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: a lot of land would open for development
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: farm workers will be out of jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: fields would return to normal
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: toilets wouldn't  be needed any more
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Land more plentiful for recreation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: there would be more animals in the world
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would save water on flushed toilets
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: everyone would die
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: We wouldn't have breakfast, lunch and diner times anymore
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 10

Response: less people needed to grow food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: supermarket and grocery stores would no longer be necessary
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: people would have to find new ways to socialize rather than meeting for dinner, lunch etc.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farmers would lose their jobs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Farmland no longer needed
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: we wouldn't want to care for as many animals like cows and pigs
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: land would be wasted
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more food stores
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: We would appreciate the smells in the air more
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 50

Response: animal production would cease
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: farming would cease production
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: The earth's climate would drastically improve
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No more starvation issues in the world!
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more agriculture
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: No more animal deaths for livestock
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: better standard of living for all
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Starvation and malnutrition would cease to exist.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Farmland would be covered over with housing.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Doctors would be less busy.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: Environment not polluted
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Not have to use the natural environment much.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: livestock population explosion
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: less pollution due to less mass transportation of food
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: World wars will end
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 38

Response: decrease of food bourne illnesses
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: a lot of animals' lives would be spared
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Weight loss products would all but disappear
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less people would be affected by their allergies
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: No one will die of starvation
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: change in body chemistry and composition
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: The earth would be less polluted
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30

Response: Farm animals will explode in population numbers.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Farmers will lose their livelihood.
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 22

Response: Less farmlands and more buildings
Human originality rating (0-100 scale): 30