Yeah, we know that time-travel isn't exactly around the corner, BUT if it were, would it be ethical to, say, go back in time and strangle baby Adolf Hitler or garrot Josef Stalin or cause the death of Pol Pot?
2006-11-25 06:36:44 · 2 answers · asked by Willster 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I think as we get close to the actual time when it's possible to time-travel, there will have to be some kind of guidelines set forth to be sure the results of our actions don't create a bigger problem.
There is the concept that if we change history, a parallel universe is going to be created and we wouldn't remember any of this because we would, if we were alive, have entirely different outcomes in the other world.
The complexities are so great that we cannot even fathom the consequences of going back in time.
There are those that believe that the so-called "UFO's" really are time travelers from our future. Who knows? Might be.
2006-11-25 06:51:15 · answer #1 · answered by Gnome 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ah, this is where you get the paradox of time travel. If you did that, they would not go down in history as monsters, therefore, you would have no need to go back in time to commit the deed, would you? Which would mean, of course, that as you did not go back and kill them, they would have lived to become monsters.
Congratulations, you have just invented the parallel universe.
2006-11-25 14:40:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋