Switchy Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Do you think scientists would be allowed to go back in time and change the timeline, or would the consequences of doing this be too disasterous for society? (A change in the timeline could change the entire future history of the planet). Switchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paladius Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 the further you go back the more potential for radical change. If there were a situation where something horrific happened and you had the chance to go back in time and change things, would it not at least be worth a try? On the other hand, if you had time travel technology, (or could steal it), would you expect that moral obligations would trump the compulsion of greed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 If there were a situation where something horrific happened and you had the chance to go back in time and change things, would it not at least be worth a try? On the other hand, if you had time travel technology, (or could steal it), would you expect that moral obligations would trump the compulsion of greed? The two scenarios are not "on the other hand" situations. They are exactly the same. You object to greed as some sort of immoral compulsion but equate changing some past horrific incident with morality. Assuming that people died (though death isn't necessarily a know-all be-all qualifier) in this horrific incident that you want to change, what of the lives of the people that were directly affected by the indicent in a positive way? "Affected", for example, in the sense that they were born rather than some other child because of how the incident played out. Which is the greater immorality, greed or causing one or more people to cease to exist? Who gets to make that determination? You? Why you? BTW: Over an extended period (whatever than means in a time traveling world) what possible advantage, greed-wise, would a time traveler have? Why would this be an advantage once you take in all of the implications of time travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paladius Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Lets say someone has use of time machine. A) a computer malfunctions and starts MAD nuclear conflict. Earth is devastated. So... you under a moral pretense, go back in time and inflict a fix or virus into the hosts computer mainframe. B) you decide that the world is heading to a terrible place (in your opinion). The "lesser" (in your mind) people of the earth are breeding at a pace that will outstrip the natural resources the planet offers and crime is rampant. Lets say you just don't like one religion or another. You then go back in time and create/set up a situation that will eradicate the race/religion of your choice. At the same time, you set up some stock accounts that will blossom into fortunes. The end results of these two scenarios may be the same, but the reasoning for doing them is different. Scenario A may be likely chosen as the desired action based on a consensus among members of a group. While scenario B may simply be the will of one corrupt individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts