If you could . . . would you? And what do you think would happen?

[slyc_willie]

Borrowing the basic gist of a recent thread started by Abs . . . let's say you were given the ability (never mind how) to travel back in time, but only once, and say, for a only a full twenty-four hours. Would you take the opportunity? You could pick any day in history, whether in recorded history (as we know it) or not, and you would have the potential to change the future as happened after that event.

Would you do it? Would you go back in time to save Martin Luther King Jr. from his assassin? Or kill Adolf Hitler? Would you give Leonardo DaVinci some insights into the technology of the future? Or prevent Eli Whitney from building the first cotton gin?

I have a new story I'm working on that addresses this scenario, and I'm curious about what some of you might have to say about this. There are moral, ethical, philosophical and even spiritual and religious issues to consider here.

So, if you could go back in time, would you? And how do you think history would unfold after your intervention?

 

[Nirvanadragones]

I'm struggling enough to be the hero in my own life. And I'd prefer to see what I can change about the future, not the past. So no, I wouldn't go back . . . as selfish as it may sound. There is too much hurt in the world. Who and what is worth going back for more than anyone/ thing else? It's not my place to make that decision. I wouldn't know where to start with trying to fix it, especially where it has already happened.

 

[ishtat]

I would have liked to be able to prevent the burning of the Library of Alexandria in 391 AD. The Library had existed for at least 500 years and is known to have contained many times the whole of the corpus of classical literature and philosophy that survived.

This event marked the beginning of the Dark ages which lasted for some 1500 years. It's difficult to grasp today that western society and culture went backwards for such a period of time.

 

[The_Darkness]

I'd be a greedy bastard about it. I'd travel back to 1995, slap myself in the face and tell myself, "You're going to make mistakes. Don't dwell on them. You're going to do great things, don't get an ego about it. You're going to go into Engineering. You can't figure out Calculus. Study and work hard, stupid!"

 

[sweetness6280]

I wouldn't go back. I'm one of those people who believe that there is a purpose in everything. If I start messing with the past, then I become responsible for the future. I know without a doubt that I don't possess the wisdom to forsee the consequences of any changes I might make.

I wouldn't change anything in my personal past, either. Everything that has happened in my life, good and bad, has created the woman I am today. Would I be the same if certain events had not unfolded? There is no way to know.

I find comfort in the past, and I try to learn from it. But I don't want to change it.

 

[driphoney]

I used to play this game with myself all the time as a kid, but never pondered being a change agent, I just wanted to know what it really felt like to live in certain eras and certain locations.

I wanted to spend two or three days on the Oregon Trail. I also wanted to spend a few days in WWII England (of course, my house would remain unharmed!) Also, pre-WWII China, Victorian era Europe and maybe Africa. Russia during the revolution. American Civil War Richmond, VA.

I was never much interested in the rich, famous or influential, just the everyday person and what their life was like, really like. I guess I'm that way in the here and now, too. The other day someone looked at me like I just arrived from Mars when I replied back to their comment on an upcoming concert they were attending, "Who's Jeff Dunham?" People are still laughing at me about that.

 

[R. Richard]

Of course, I would go back to a specific point in my own previous life. [It would take far too long to explain and the statute of limitations still hasn't run out.]

I would explain to my earlier self, and in great detail, the useful things that I have learned in that time. I would, basically, affect only myself and my path through life. [There were any number of people who owed money to The Man who would dispute that last.]

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Morally, ethically, philosophically, spiritually, and religiously, even grammatically, the day before yesterday was kinda nice. I could finish planting the tomatoes. That would give them an extra three days start, cause otherwise I'm not gonna get 'em in until tomorrow. Which means they'd be ripe three days earlier. Which means when a dark and handsome stranger lover shows up 57 days from now, I could make him fresh bruschetta. And we'd fall in love and the world would be forever changed!

What do you have against the cotton gin, anyway?

 

[OhMissScarlett]

I'd be a greedy bastard about it. I'd travel back to 1995, slap myself in the face and tell myself, "You're going to make mistakes. Don't dwell on them. You're going to do great things, don't get an ego about it. You're going to go into Engineering. You can't figure out Calculus. Study and work hard, stupid!"

Don't touch yourself, you'll cause a paradox and rip a hole in reality.

 

[john-the-author]

I don't have anything big for the world; I think it'd be about me. I'd tell a much, much younger me to work on being a different person, to get to know my grandmother better (who was truly amazing and I didn't appreciate it until after she was dead), to not get married to my first wife or at least to bail when I thought I should've, and to pursue the Kim of "Kim and Me" in the early 80s when I met her, have kids, and exercise so I wouldn't become diabetic.

Would I have managed to convince myself? I'm not sure, honestly--I can be a real headstrong asshole. But I might've liked to see the difference.

 

[TE999]

I would definitely go back. I would do all I could to prevent slavery from being established the United States. Maybe sink a ship or three before those poor souls were brought on board.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd quickly say I wanted to go back, and then I'd waste a whole lot of time and effort trying to determine where I'd go back to and what I'd do differently. And then if that worked out well, I'd want to do more--and be in worst shape than before I was given the choice.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'd kill Constantine. Keep Rome pagan, thank you very much. We may not see all ends, but I don't agree with Voltaire's Candide who believed that this is the best of all possible worlds. Let the Mithraists save knowledge, instead of the monks. LOL.

Who knows...maybe a pagan Roman Empire might have survived and there might have been no Dark Ages.

 

[slyc_willie]

I wouldn't go back. I'm one of those people who believe that there is a purpose in everything. If I start messing with the past, then I become responsible for the future. I know without a doubt that I don't possess the wisdom to forsee the consequences of any changes I might make.

A philosopher might say that being given the opportunity to travel to the past serves a purpose as well, and therefore, change was destined to happen.

Morally, ethically, philosophically, spiritually, and religiously, even grammatically, the day before yesterday was kinda nice. I could finish planting the tomatoes. That would give them an extra three days start, cause otherwise I'm not gonna get 'em in until tomorrow. Which means they'd be ripe three days earlier. Which means when a dark and handsome stranger lover shows up 57 days from now, I could make him fresh bruschetta. And we'd fall in love and the world would be forever changed!

Hey, you never know.

What do you have against the cotton gin, anyway?

'Cause gin tastes better with juniper. Nah, I just picked one of those things we're taught in school as being a 'defining moment' in modern western civilization. I might have just as easily suggested stopping Henry Ford from inventing the modern assembly line.

What, no one wants to venture a guess as to how history would turn out if a significant event were changed? Let's say someone traveled back to the early 1500s and assassinated Francisco Pizarro (or, better yet, sunk his ships en route to the Americas). The entire culture of Central America might have been saved.

Or, say you went back in time and convinced the Secret Service, at the last minute, to drive JFK through Dallas in a hardtop sedan. Would the American Camelot continue to effect a "renaissance," or would Kennedy's inexperience result in nuclear war?

 

[impressive]

Yeah, I would. There are cusps, turning points, where I'd nudge folks (self included) toward a different path. Often it would simply be to trust their intuition -- and act upon it. I wouldn't "make" history change, but I would be in a few places whispering in a few ears, saying "Are you sure you won't reconsider that decision?"

I often wonder what today would look like if I'd been just "this much" pushier with my obstetrician 16 years ago. How much pain could I have spared?

 

[Saucy_Sage]

A philosopher might say that being given the opportunity to travel to the past serves a purpose as well, and therefore, change was destined to happen.



Hey, you never know.



'Cause gin tastes better with juniper. Nah, I just picked one of those things we're taught in school as being a 'defining moment' in modern western civilization. I might have just as easily suggested stopping Henry Ford from inventing the modern assembly line.

What, no one wants to venture a guess as to how history would turn out if a significant event were changed? Let's say someone traveled back to the early 1500s and assassinated Francisco Pizarro (or, better yet, sunk his ships en route to the Americas). The entire culture of Central America might have been saved.

Or, say you went back in time and convinced the Secret Service, at the last minute, to drive JFK through Dallas in a hardtop sedan. Would the American Camelot continue to effect a "renaissance," or would Kennedy's inexperience result in nuclear war?

Well, sure, it might have changed. Although I'm pretty certain that Francisco's younger brother Bizarro would have been worse. But that's a lot different from going back in time and changing history. Even Michael J. Fox couldn't do that! Didn't Asimov write a short story about this. Something about Lewis Carroll's Red Queen?

 

[slyc_willie]

Well, sure, it might have changed. Although I'm pretty certain that Francisco's younger brother Bizarro would have been worse. But that's a lot different from going back in time and changing history. Even Michael J. Fox couldn't do that! Didn't Asimov write a short story about this. Something about Lewis Carroll's Red Queen?

Asimov dabbled some in time travel, but like Clarke, he went with the moralist (or fatalist?) view of "what's done is done, and can't be undone." It's the sort of philosophy that insists if JFK was saved from an assassin, the car he was in would have been in an accident and Kennedy still would have been killed. Because he simply was supposed to die then.

Oh, and Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) did change the future.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

....

Would you do it? Would you go back in time to save Martin Luther King Jr. from his assassin? Or kill Adolf Hitler? Would you give Leonardo DaVinci some insights into the technology of the future? Or prevent Eli Whitney from building the first cotton gin?

I have a new story I'm working on that addresses this scenario, and I'm curious about what some of you might have to say about this. There are moral, ethical, philosophical and even spiritual and religious issues to consider here.

So, if you could go back in time, would you? And how do you think history would unfold after your intervention?

The problem with changing history are the paradox's you could or would create.

Saving MLK could cause America to be ripped by civil war, again.

Killing Hitler might have hastened the spread of communism to more countries than it actually spread too.

And maybe someone already went back to try to explain some of the machines in the future to Leo, just so the seed would be planted in someone else's mind.

Preventing Eli from inventing the cotton gin may just have ruined the society you came from therefore causing you not to be born, so you could never go back in time to prevent Eli from inventing the cotton gin...and so on...and so on. You get my drift.

So you see not only the dilemma's that you mentioned but the dilemma of paradox exist if you were to attempt to change history.

You might be able to go back and observe without causing a paradox but even that might be dangerous.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I still say Death to Constantine. LOL

 

[slyc_willie]

The problem with changing history are the paradox's you could or would create.

Saving MLK could cause America to be ripped by civil war, again.

Killing Hitler might have hastened the spread of communism to more countries than it actually spread too.

And maybe someone already went back to try to explain some of the machines in the future to Leo, just so the seed would be planted in someone else's mind.

Preventing Eli from inventing the cotton gin may just have ruined the society you came from therefore causing you not to be born, so you could never go back in time to prevent Eli from inventing the cotton gin...and so on...and so on. You get my drift.

So you see not only the dilemma's that you mentioned but the dilemma of paradox exist if you were to attempt to change history.

You might be able to go back and observe without causing a paradox but even that might be dangerous.

Yeah, I've read Einstein's, Sagan's, and Asimov's takes on time travel, too. The theory and repercussions of it is a hobby of mine.

Discussing paradoxes is sort of like talking about the weather on Mars. You have no idea what's going to happen until you experience it, and no way of knowing if the conditions are as you expect.

A long time ago, I began rewriting history starting with Spartacus in 73 BC. Instead of listening to his army's lust for glory and vengeance, he convinced them to head north and east, away from Italy and beyond Greece. I had him encounter and assimilate the slavic peoples north of the Black Sea and form a new society, etc. etc. . . . .

I went with the premise that, despite such radical changes, many events in history occurred as they did in our own timeline, only differently. The Mongols were stopped at Kiev; the Spanish Inquisition claimed Cristobal Colon among its victims; the Renaissance lasted through the nineteenth century without the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and the Americas were first populated by the Chinese beginning in the middle of the sixteenth century.

I wish I still ahd that alternate history; it would make for an interesting backdrop for a series of stories.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd kill Constantine.

You certainly have this fixation about killing something. Out-of-control extremist much?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Would you go back in time to save Martin Luther King Jr. from his assassin?

No. Just one little boy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You certainly have this fixation about killing something. Out-of-control extremist much?

Only killing tyrants. Constantine was definitely a tyrant. Just look at his penal code....brutal punishments for anything that he didn't like, down to people's sex lives. Including the execution of his son Crispus. Not to mention that he basically made Christianity the state religion.

 

[JamesSD]

Or kill Adolf Hitler?

Sounds good to me. I'm sure this thought experiment has been run thousands of times. Would it prevent the Holocaust? Would that, in turn, prevent the "brain drain" of Jewish scientists which led directly to the Manhattan Project, the US developing atomic weapons, and dominating the world both economically and militarily for the next 50+ years?

Regardless, it seems worth a shot, and dealing with the after-effects.

 

[impressive]

No. Just one little boy.

Yes. Although, I'd extend that to several AH kids.