Question #d6b39

To approach this using an analogy, let's consider people. Imagine a world, where no one talked to anybody. A world where interaction of ANY KIND, be it facial expression, non-verbal communication, whatever, WAS TABOO. Sure, you might be able to survive, but if you sit and think about it for even a short while, I'm sure you'd come to realise the huge complications of such a society. In fact, I'm rather certain that such an existence would border on primal.

And this is the point . Without interactions between things, we never develop beyond the first point. By the same token, if chemical reactions did not take place between things then there would be no development on a much more fundamental scale.

Respiration? A chemical process that is vital to life. But how to we respire? We require glucose. But glucose is a compound! If chemical reactions did not take place then surely an organic compound like glucose would never exist in the first place, no? Even the oxygen, and many other gases in the air we breathe, is not simply an atom wandering through the ether but a molecule. Without chemical reactions, how could molecules form?

The outcome of this is obvious: without chemical reactions, life cannot be sustained. Even the most basic principles cease to be without chemical reactions, but of course these are only the basic principles! We have a chemical understanding of EVERYTHING AROUND US! Tables, chairs, windows, beds, lighting ... it all stems from our understanding of the chemical processes that allow these materials and other things to be created.

Chemical reactions may not be the reason for everything. Physical processes, such as nuclear fusion in our stars, are responsible for many, more fundamental things in the universe. But as I have hopefully demonstrated, there remains to be a tremendous need for chemical reactions, too.