Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes.
No they wouldn't, they would look like the recent field of sunflowers that has been posted a lot here recently.
Ansel Adams made some of the most captivating and atmospheric studies of the American scenery ever with 11 stops of recordable DR (but boy he took his understanding of those 11 stops to a level few here can appreciate), people like Galen Rowell did the same thing around the world in colour with little more than 6 stops of DR. Sensor performance, even though it is the new kicking bag, equals or surpasses even negative film for DR, iso and resolution. DR is as much a red herring as megapixels were once we arrived at levels that vastly outstripped most of our needs.
Sure there are areas where performance increases can be made, and they will be, but throwing our toys out of the pram at every opportunity because we only see limitations rather than possibilities is pathetic, a true first world "problem". We have "more" than anybody else ever has in the history of photography, yet here all many seem to do is bitch it isn't enough.
I am a working pro, my output from seven year old cameras is the best I have ever made in 35 years of doing this.
It's my imaginary sensor so I can say the photos look like anything I want -- but I understand and just found the sunflowers GIF you were talking about (I think). I'm not saying that DR is meaningless, but like you say, these aren't real problems. We have amazing tools these days and between the digital sensors, multiple exposures, sharp lenses, and PhotoShop, there's really no excuse for taking poor photos.
I've been going through my work lately as I prepare for this year's NANPA Showcase photo competition (the only one I do), it's amazing how little difference I see in my old Rebel XSi/T2i photos vs. my newest work with the 5DIII and 1D X. That's exactly why I bought good glass and waited to upgrade my bodies...and why I'll probably have the same two bodies in 5 years...