Kill one, save one: the time traveler's Conundrum

TheDespaxas

TheDespaxas

Really Really Experienced
Juse a bit of a thought about a personal reflection of mine and I wanted to propose it to the chyoa community.

It came from the endless kill Hitler trope in almost anything time travel related.

It started me thinking about the most influential persons in world history, those that brought the greatest harm or good. Be it directly or through a domino effect.

So imagine if you will that you have a time ray gun. You can kill anyone in history or save anyone from the death they had.

Who would you kill or save to either achieve the most good you can or the greatest amount of change in history.

I have my two answers but I will wait a little to reveal them because I am curious to see if someone would come to the same conclusion.

You have to justify your choice and there is no bad answer just your personal choice.

Last limitation considering we don't know the future effects of present events this is limited to people that are already dead.

I'm waiting your ideas and will post mine when there are 5 or 6 good answers.

Maybe put a link to the wiki page if it is a lesser known person.
 
It really doesn't matter.
It is not even necessary to kill or save someone.

What if his mother had a headache on the day of his procreation or got interrupted or his father just pulled out.
These are just directly related and very obvious examples.

It would be enough to not meet a person or don't have the chance to talk to them in the right situation. They wouldn't laugh and think that you're likable. That can happen within 5 minutes or even a second.

A discussion can change your thinking. Even a sentence could do that. Hearing it or not can change your life. (input building resource)

A person is the sum of their memories and experiences. It's all in their head. (resource)

Environmental influences can change the usage of memories and experiences. If the person has a bad day they may not be as polite as usual. If the person has a headache they may not be able to use the full potential of their memories and experiences. (modifying resource on output)


Each change regardless how small it might be could change the whole world (within a sufficient amount of time).

So it could be enough to just stand on a street in 1800 for five minutes to prevent WWII. (Though it could also do something worse)


On the other side, any of that changes would result in chain reactions and I'm sure, that I wouldn't exist if there was just the slightest change in history, no matter if good or bad.
So it is pointless to think that it will do some good or bad to the world if you can't experience the result.

(Besides, there would be the time travel to the past paradox that would happen when just existing in the past (assuming a sufficient amount of time difference))


In conclusion, I can't name any person (I would like to kill) ;)
 
I Agree, with you even if it wasn't the point of the the exercise.

As for the ww2 thing just having the guy on the admission board of the Wien art academy be in a better mood one morning and Hitler would have become just another low talent painter in Austria.

The whole thing is more a thought experiment detached from the paradox inherent to all time travel.
 
Kill before they came to the world Fredrick Trump (POTUS grandfather) why you may ask: political reasons.
Save from the death they had hhhmmm... let me think here Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although I feel he would eventually be assassinated and the war would be delayed, but it might change the outcome of WWI entirely and what we know now.
For better or for worse this is only an exercise not reality.
 
mindtheMILF said:
Kill before they came to the world Fredrick Trump (POTUS grandfather) why you may ask: political reasons.
Save from the death they had hhhmmm... let me think here Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although I feel he would eventually be assassinated and the war would be delayed, but it might change the outcome of WWI entirely and what we know now.
For better or for worse this is only an exercise not reality.
Click to expand...


For you second you had the same as I have but the other way around.

My time bullet is for Gavrilo Princip the Serbian anarchist that killed him.

In my opinion while there would have been other wars probably, you can put on his tab the death of ww1, ww2, communism and all conflicts issued from the cold war. The archive might die but it was the nationality of his murderer that brought France into the mix of what should have been a small punitive action and made the shit hit the fan.

On the first I'm not American but killing someone for what his grandson might eventually do seem a weak motive. But that's your choice.

Edit
Also that was precisely why I limited it to dead people to avoid controversy about current events. My question was more on an historical scale. The person you want to counter might as well die of a stroke in a few days without having done much if anything. I don't think it deserves erasing people, but hey that's me and you might have your reasons.

The justifying the answer asked for a more detailed explanation.
 
My death target: Christopher Columbus.

Justification: disastrous results of his little exploration of the Atlantic cannot be overemphasized. Changing that one event leads to a quantum shift in every event since, a "whole new world" if you will. Millions of people in both the Americas and Asia never feel the European yolk, and thus do not come to hate their fellow men. The economy of Spain does not collapse under the devastating devaluation caused by the imports of ton upon ton of precious metals from the Americas, and thus their litle adventure in attacking brittain never happens, preserving spain's ecosystem. Meanwhile with the added time bought by the so called "Great Explorers" death Powhatan and his descendants unite the entire eastern seaboard into a single nation which can treat with the Europeans on a more even footing.

My life to save: Martin Luther King Jr.

Justification: I cannot begin to stress how positive it would be for the Assassin who killed Martin Luther King Jr. to be Caught, tried, and convicted. The arc of history at that time was angling twards one inevitable result: PRESIDENT Martin Luther King Jr. If that event takes place hundreds of thousands of situations since either occur differently or line up more positively: resulting in a WORLD where the Ideas and Ideals that are the true foundation of successful democracy become accepted the world over. He would not only have been a good president, he would have been a GREAT president, and had he lived our world would undoubtedly be a better place for it.
 
My kill: Manstein, "The Father of the Blitzkreig". Without him, Germany would not have honed the Blitzkreig tactic to such a fine level, and when Hitler took power and attacked, the assaults would likely have collapsed against the Maginot line, leaving Germany as a cautionary tale against being decieved by facism without the millions of deaths, and strengthening Europe during the Cold War, likely ending it sooner. Which means more time spent building a better world and less time building nukes and looking tough.

My save: Alan Turing. Saved Britain by force of mind during the Second World War, leading the team that cracked the Engima machines and gave the Allies invaluable intelligence. Driven to suicide for being gay.
 
My Kill:
Probably the Serbian Gavrilo Princip as well. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was doomed to fall apart at one point or another but that it would trigger a World War in its final fight was disastrous for everyone involved. Although the First World War also ended with the creation of Poland (As well as a myriad of other independent states, Thanks Austro-Hungarian Empire). I might disagree with their modern borders a bit but having Poland not exist is redicilous in the first place....Russians and Germans working together rarely accomplishes anything good....

For the sake of difference though I would hand it either to Stalin or Mao, because these two dumbfucks are worse than Hitler. Who already was REALLY FUCKING BAD.

My Save:

If there was a way to Otto von Bismarck immortal this would be my answer. But he died of old age, driven halfway insane by the loss of his wife if the rumours are to be trusted. This is a hard one for me, most people I would like to see saved died a natural death anyway.

To give a less serious answer, I guess Monty Oum. I really enjoyed RWBY even after his untimely demise but I wish I could see where his actual plans would have gone. Pretty trivial to save one guy from an incident just to watch an animated show, i know, but there really aren't many people in history I would like to save. A fuckload more I would love to kill though. Says a bit about my personality I guess.
 
My save would be Alexander The Great.
Heir of a small kingdom north of Greece he rose to the throne at 20, in 12 years he unified Greece, conquered the most powerful empire of the world at the time Persia and Egypt, with his empire going to NG to the Indus Valley.

He had founded 70 cities and launched numerous infrastructure works. He had studied under Aristotle and greater the Great Library.

WHen he died of a fever at 32 in Babylon of a fever, his empire without a solid heir split between the governors of the provinces. He was going back to Europe when it happened and would have probably conquered it 4 centuries before the Roman could.

A World unified with the advanced technological and scientific knowledge of the time would probably had spared us the Dark ages and the downfall of civilization. Technology discovered during the Renaissance when work of the classical Greek re-emerged could have been achieved in the two first centuries.

We would now probably have conquered the solar system and speak Greek if he would have lived long enough to consolidate his dynasty.
 
That's not necessarily true about Alexander...

Some analysis of his personality based on accounts from those who knew him and copies of his writings indicate that had he not died of that fever he might have, (as age and inevitable infirmity robbed him of his ability to lead from the front,) become a tyrant and done a great deal of harm to the advance of knowledge and understanding...

Also, one must be aware that the Romans had full access to the Great literature of the Greeks, and science advanced fairly slowly during their tenure as a world power. Our recent success has been due to several advantages neither Civilization possessed: paper, the printing press, and the scientific method...

Would these advances have emerged sooner if Alexander the Great had lived to a ripe old Age? (Would they have emerged At All?) Who knows: but one thing is certain: All empires fall.

No empire in all of history has managed to endure even a single Millennium. Alexander's empire would almost certainly be no different. Perhaps he would have conquered Europe and/or Africa, perhaps we would all be speaking and writing Greek, perhaps science and technology would have advanced more rapidly: but, for a certainty, we would not be living in a world spanning Macedonian empire.
 
Nemo of Utopia said:
No empire in all of history has managed to endure even a single Millennium.
Click to expand...
That's not quite true.

Purely hypothetical, I would either save or kill an intelligent, kindhearted person born around AD. (At least I suppose these characteristics)
That would prevent the rise of the empire that exists for more than 1000 years which is responsible for forcing millions of people to live in fear, torturing, humiliating and killing in the name of faith, and condoning the biggest crimes in history.

Either save or kill because saving probably would just delay the rise of the empire, though that person could have the chance to establish values that would avoid that organization. It would be also possible, that the non-occurrence of their martyrdom could avoid the massive growth.
 
In that same vein, I would like to neither kill nor save, but instead give a "Stern Talking To" to another prophet born around 570 AD...

In specific I would like to show him what his followers end up doing to the environment of northern Africa through ecological miss-managing of water resources and plant life. Also, I would have a word or eighty with him on the topics of slavery, intoxicating substances,* and genital mutilation.
*(I would inform him of the existence of Mead, and give warning about opium, hashish, meth-amphetamine, and so forth...)
Hopefully the end results would be that the world today would be better and more ecologically stable...
(And just to be clear: I am utterly indifferent to the possibility that these changes result in that religion taking over the majority of the planet, these changes would make it a BETTER religion, and possibly result in the certain other events (such as the crusades) never happening...)
 
Nemo of Utopia said:
(And just to be clear: I am utterly indifferent to the possibility that these changes result in that religion taking over the majority of the planet, these changes would make it a BETTER religion, and possibly result in the certain other events (such as the crusades) never happening...)
Click to expand...

Without wanting to derail the discussion into a historical debate. The Crusades were pretty much guaranteed to happen regardless of how good or bad Islam is and how certain interpretations of it over the centuries has stigmatized it. Muslims held The Holy Land for centuries under The Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates, the Buyid and Fatmid Dynasties. They were happy to get fat off the money of christian pilgrims. The problem occurred when The Seljuk Turks invaded(and they invaded both Christian and Muslims).

The First Crusade was a response to a call for help by Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos to help fight The Seljuks. Taking Jerusalem, The Holy Land, and the establishment of the Crusader States(Antioch, Edessa,Aleppo and Jersualem) were secondary objectives. Subsequent Crusades were launched after Muslim Rulers who viewed that land as theirs(after having it for hundreds of years) invaded the Crusader States and conquered them(Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth,), against the Byzantine Empire because Venice was spiteful(Fourth Crusade), and to conquer or convert Eastern European pagans(Northern, Prussian, and Swedish Crusades).

The problem isn't that Muslims are good, or bad, or anywhere in between. The problem is that Medieval Catholics made it a religious thing and The Seljuks were "Not Christian"
 
Last edited:
The thing is you cannot predict what effect your change will make. Kill Hitler and another Nazi could end up as leader, one who was less prone to making rash and dumb decisions and wins WWII. Save Jesus and without the crucifixion he could just become one of many would be prophets that were around at the time and there's no Christianity.
 
I
android1966 said:
The thing is you cannot predict what effect your change will make. Kill Hitler and another Nazi could end up as leader, one who was less prone to making rash and dumb decisions and wins WWII. Save Jesus and without the crucifixion he could just become one of many would be prophets that were around at the time and there's no Christianity.
Click to expand...

I don't see the drawback of your second point. Assuming you could even find such a person to save, with it being absolutely no historical proof of him even existing.
 
Glad to see some of you have some sense of ugliness. For the rest of you, here's just one of your alternatives:

Weakening Hitler sounds oh so sweet. Smaller civilian casualties at the worst, The League of Nations realizes how weak it is and reforms into The United Nations, and The Manhattan Project never forms to counter his similar project so Hiroshima and Nagasaki are spared. Sure, we'd be behind in space travel since that German missile never misfired to prove it possible, but that's inevitable, probably. No, the focus is on Japan. How stopping Hitler does nothing about The Annex of Manchuria, The Rape of Nanjing, Unit 731 (which is the Japanese equivalent of Nazi science based in Occupied China), Pearl Harbor, The Bataan Death March, or using the Okinawan people as meat shields (since they're an inferior race to glorious, xenophobic Nihon). And let's remember, Emperor Shouwa (Hirohito) only surrendered in the face of nuclear weapons. Without them, that war wages on resulting in a higher death toll for all parties involved. More critically, the continued war efforts only further validate Nosaka Sanzou's claims of no confidence in Shouwa that he and allies had been preaching since Versailles, and he was already swaying Japanese forces in Occupied China against Shouwa, to say nothing of the allies hiding in the motherland. Without the nuclear bombs, Nosaka is allowed to build an army for his rebellion and deliver control of Japan to the Japanese Communist Party he co-founded. And that's not all! That work he did in Occupied China was also for the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party, and his time as a spy for Comintern left him friends in The Soviet Union. Do you really want to give the research of Unit 731, the lengths of the Japanese military, the finances of the Japanese economy, and a hand in the development of Communist China to Joseph Stalin in a world that hasn't witnessed the power of nuclear weapons and isn't distracted by space travel? Because that's probably what we'd be getting if not for Hitler being a serious threat dabbling with nuclear weapons.

It's really easy to focus on the negatives we got through our history, but look at the tragedies that could have been. Look at the leaps forward we made overcoming our hardships. Look closely, and you start to realize humanity could have wiped itself out several times already. While I'm not happy with what we've got, I'm not about to roll the dice on a single bullet. A whole mess of them, maybe, but now we're getting close to tyranny. I'll keep stepping forward and working for my ideals that way, thank you very much.

(And to help your view of ugliness in history, I deliberately got something wrong in my elaboration following the weakening of Blitzkrieg. See if you can spot it and realize how the correction changes my post!)
 
TheDespaxas said:
I


I don't see the drawback of your second point. Assuming you could even find such a person to save, with it being absolutely no historical proof of him even existing.
Click to expand...

It was only meant as an example. The point being that by saving someone's life you could actually destroy their legacy and relegate them from a renowned and respected historical figure for many to an insignificant footnote in history.
 
Jeez after all this discussion I'd be too scared to kill any significant historical figure, behind the scenes or not...

What are y'all? History majors? Damn.

So I'll go with killing a serial killer. Not Manson because of the wide ranging social influence he had on a generation, but another sick fuck.

Wouldn't feel even a little bad about that. There would be a ripple effect... But I'd roll the dice that without that additional pain in the world the ripple effect would be overall good or just net neutral, as many people really don't have a major singular social impact.

Then I guess I'd have to do something similar for the save... I have a less clear target for that, though, and I'm tempted to do MLK... Maybe because saving people seems inherently less destructive than killing people and he was so fucking good at what he did and he didn't really need to be a martyr he was admired for his thoughts and works in life.

If not him, though, I could do like my first answer and save a really good Joe Schmoe

... This sort of answer defeats the point of the discussion, I suppose, but after reading responses its the only sort of answer that appears to make sense, cop out or no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top