The Obvious Choice ... /s
Posted on 09/22/2010 8:32:49 PM PDT by Abin Sur
If you could eliminate one person from history, who would it be? One caveat: it can't be Muhammad, for one simple reason: almost everyone is going to pick him! This would get rather monotonous, so let's just assume that 90% (at least) of the responses would pick Muhammad first. If you still pick him...BZZT I'm sorry, you've lost, thank you for playing and here's a copy of our home game.
And let's not have anyone picking Muhammad's father or grandfather just to get at him, either. That's cheating.
Ok, now that that's out of the way, who do you pick? Here's the rules: You can go back in history and prevent any one person from being born. You don't have to kill anyone. For instance, if you want to stop Hitler from being born, you can go up to Klara Pölzl (Adolph's mother) in 1880 and give her 10,000 marks to emigrate to the USA. She never marries Alois, so presto...no Adolph. This will have the incidental effect of preventing his brothers from being born as well, of course.
After you prevent your target from being conceived, you snap back to 2010 and enjoy living in a world made better by your actions. Bear in mind, though, that removing someone from history may not have that great an effect. If you prevent Darwin from existing, someone is still going to come up with the theory of evolution. It may be called by another name, and it may be delayed by a decade or two, but things tend to get invented when it's time to invent them.
I would note that some individuals would be exceptions. If you took out Isaac Newton (heaven know why, but it's your choice), modern science as we know it would be delayed by half a century, at least.
Anyway, that's the setup. Who do you pick, and what do you think would be the result of this person not existing?
Walter O’Malley
Instead of the Archduke, it might have been better to remove Gavrilo Princip far from Sarajevo that particular day.
Good one. :^)
The Roman Empire (Specifically the Eastern Roman Empire, called incorrectly the Byzantine Empire) held it's own against the Muslims, particularly the Turks, until the middle 1000's. It was the loss at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, and more importantly, the loss of heavily populated central Anatola, that sealed the Empire's fate. Even then the Roman Empire held on until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Hagar was the mother of Ishmael.
Genesis 16 1Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. 2And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. 4And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee. 6But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
7And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
That is the one of two main problems with the other choices …i.e. the usual Mao, Stalin and Hitler (the other main problem is unintended consequences, which I shall touch on later).
The problem of convergent evolution stems from what happens in the wild, where in different environment (even different continents) different species of animal occupy the same niche. For instance, in the continent of Africa the main feline predator is the African Lion, in India it is the Tiger (apart from a small part called Gir where the Asiatic Lion holds sway), in South America it is the Jaguar, and in North America it is the Puma (although once upon a time the American Lion, much larger than the current Lion, ruled). In places like Australia, with no real felines, marsupials took over the spot …in particular the Tasmanian Tiger (before it got hunted to extinction …though a couple are still spotted every now and then). You’ll find different types of mammals, reptiles, insects, etc occupying the same niche in different areas. There was a need for that niche to be filled, and it was (in some cases in a spectacular fashion, such as the Australian Death Adder, which looks like a Viper but is not. The whole of Australia only has elapid venomous snakes – related to the Mambas and Cobras – but the Death Adder, even though an elapid, looks and acts and moves and hunts like a viper).
The way this plays, is that there were many people who would have made a (better) Hitler! It is just that the time was not right for that type of idealogy/person/movement. If Adolf was born 10 years later, his niche would have been already taken by someone else. Same thing applies to Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Idi Amin, et al. They were simply one ‘species’ filling a niche …take the Jaguar (Hitler) out of South America (the World), and the Cougar (a far WEAKER species …in our case, a weaker Hitler-analogue) would have proliferated far farther south (i.e. the rule of the ‘new’ Hitler-analogue would have lasted far longer …albeit in a weaker form, where Nazism – rather than trying to be the dominant system – would have become a competing system much like communism was ). Or maybe the American Lion (a far STRONGER species …in our case, a stronger Hitler-analogue) may have still existed, and the entire North and South American continent would still have a feline predator bigger and more powerful than the Jaguar (e.g. imagine if Hitler never had syphilis, or if he was not STUPID enough to have attacked Russia, or if he was SMART enough to have waited 5 more years for the already superior German technology to have increased numbers …etc etc etc ….the Third Reich would probably still be on today).
If we went back in time and killed Michael Jordan, some other basketball player would have risen up and filled his niche. That TIME was looking for a player to idolize. Same thing with Shaq (who is not necessarily a good player), or Kobe (who is not necessarily the best player). Or with music ..take out Michael Jackson back then, and probably Prince would have become the next MJ. Or Cindy Lauper with Madonna. Or a whole host of Britney-types if Spears hadn’t rose to the top of the lip-synching brigade!
Take out Hitler, and someone weaker (but far longer lasting) or stronger (with the Third Reich ruling the world) would be in place. He may not even be German …maybe it would have been a Soviet super-state. Maybe the US would have ended up being the evil empire (a question I always ask those who believe in Bible prophecy, which I do just not in the way some do where they even know the countries involved, is where is the US in the final days? It is not mentioned …the only great power mentioned is the entity the Whore sits on, called Babylon. So, unless the US is Babylon, it is not there. Once upon a time I would never have believed the US could be Babylon, but look at where it is heading. Anyways, let me stop what could be a thread hijack).
The second problem is that of unintended consequences. Like another FReeper said, take out WW2 and a whole HOST of Americans would never have been born. As he said, that war alone really did a lot to mix up the demographics and movements of Americans. Take it out, and even FR would not exist, and the whole history would have changed (ranging from JFK not being a war hero, and more importantly, his older brother surviving the war since he didn’t get on that rather-crazy-but-heroic-and-ultimately-fatal mission of flying a bomber laden with explosives to crash it by parachuting out and using radio control …that was the brother Joe Kennedy had groomed to be president; to Nixon, to Carter, and thus no Reagan …and who knows). There is no way knowing that it couldn’t have been far far worse. I always like to use the example of JFK (a man who I know is no conservative, but who is – ironically – far more conservative than most GOP leaders who call themselves conservative …he’d be to the right of the GOP were he alive today) and how he handled Cuba. Were there mistakes? Yes, many! However, had someone slightly weaker than him been in power, or slightly stronger, and we’d either have had the Soviets setting full military camp in Cuba, or have faced thermonuclear war. Thus, I am happy with him being there at that time, because even though someone else could have been much better (and Cuba would still have been pro-US), there is a chance someone else would either have had the Soviets bristling closer than Taiwan is to China, or else sparked off WW3 by wafting 2 steps rather than 3 (or 1).
Or to expound on another example a FReeper brought up when he countered the post by another FReeper about Lincoln being snuffed out. No Lincoln would have meant slavery continuing longer than it did (yes, abolition was not Lincoln’s main goal, but it happened nonetheless), and the US economy would have continued being mostly agrarian, and the US would have remained behind Argentina (until the turn of the 20th Century, Argentina was more developed than the US) for much longer. Just like no Carter would have meant no Reagan, which would have possibly led to the USSR surviving maybe a decade longer; sometimes taking one ‘un-appreciated’ element out can cause a cascading of bad things.
At the end of the day, the one person I would remove from existence would be the person who invented a way of removing people from existence in the past.
We could have averted this whole human-race mess.
But I’m not history!
No, dear friend. You are not history. I was just messing with you....
Kids, however, will be studying you for years to come.
Ishmael’s descendants are the Arab nations.
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.
Genesis 16:11-12
The angel of the LORD also said to her: “You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery.
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”
Genesis 16, a better description of Islam cannot be found.
That is what I wrote. Hagar was Sarah’s servant. Hagar was also Ishmael’s mother.
Ishtar was a Babylonian goddess.
Your choice would make some of the enviro-wackos happy.
Refer to post 184 this thread.
Hagar was Ishmael’s mother. Ishtar was a movie that bombed badly.
Lol! I read your statement as;
Hagar was Sarah’s servant.
Ishmael’s mother, Ishtar was a pagan Babylonian goddess.
Sorry for the misread. I knew the difference. I just read over the other posters incorrect name because I knew what they were trying to say.
You forgot a period and the message was muddled. I told you what I thought I read in another post. As I was reading back through the thread, I realized what you meant. Sorry!
:)
It's rather like trying to eliminate the Roman Empire by getting rid of Romulus and Remus...even if they did exist, wiping them from history doesn't erase the tens of thousands of people living on the Italian Peninsula in the 8th Century BC. The Roman Empire is still going to exist, it will just have a different foundation myth. Similarly, if Ishmael is wiped from the books Muhammad will still be around in the 7th Century as will the Arab peoples. Islam would simply be slightly different as regards its (alleged) origins.
Thanks. That made a whole lot of sense. mucking about with history can cause a lot of ....issues. Much appreciated.
Okay, if I can’t choose Muhammad, then I choose his mother and father pre-birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.