If humanity could even survive such an event, in all likelihood the majority of humanity would be eating eggs and dairy very quickly (with a fair number hunting), and eating meat again within a couple generations and the whole thing would be a huge failure.
It would also have a good chance of setting us back a few hundred years technologically indefinitely. With the collapse of the global economy, that also means a collapse of the food supply and basic infrastructure.
We'd be able to scavenge for a little, but that wouldn't last more than a year or so. The few competent farmers would be able to subsist to a degree, but not break out of that cycle; those of us who would survive would probably do it by learning how to farm again, and returning to a medieval way of life.
Serious disease would come back due to the loss of health infrastructure, infant mortality would skyrocket.
One thing many people don't understand in these apocalypse scenarios is that we have already used up all of the Earth's easily accessible precious resources. When you hit the reset button, we're not just set back a couple hundred years, but advancing again becomes much more difficult the second time around after we've re-established the basic needs for life.
I don't see that as an issue.The only possible negative consequences that I am unsure about are the effects on the eco-systems due to the liberation of millions of captivated animals and the result of large land farm land areas not being taken care of.
I also don't see these things as probably hindering further development in any significant way.Global warming, nuclear devastation, and epidemic outbreaks are just a few of the very probable occurrences that might hinder any further development.
Global warming is a coastal and mainly developing world problem (as well as an environmental disaster, but that will be short lived and mainly result in human starvation in Africa and poorer parts of SE Asia). The first world will not have major issues with it (it's capable of relocating all of those people within its borders).
Nuclear devastation is unlikely. Missile defense is effective against primitive threats, and less primitive threats are more rational. There may be a nuclear war at some point by minor parties, but it shouldn't substantially affect Europe or the Americas.
Epidemics? Sure, but again, nothing the first world can't handle within their borders. Nothing like vanishing the vast majority of the world's population.
Things are going to get very, very bad for people living in third world, and some second world countries if climate change and population growth continue (and they probably will), but this won't necessarily hold up the next iPhone for Americans.
