Instead of a few Spanish conquistadores giving everyone smallpox, you'd have had England and France and Germany and Italy and the Netherlands and Norway and Portugal and everyone else chasing down that sweet American gold (and land, and whatever) eventually.
That is too speculative. It depends on how much effort they would be willing to put into shit, whether it made more sense just to trade with them using alcohol and other shit, how the local cultures would have adapted to new technologies, etc.
The Native Americans of the northern continent adapted to horses and guns fairly well, but their technological cultural advances never really kept up.
Honestly, the whole thing was a lot like breaking the Prime Directive.
Oh, of course not. But there's not a magical lynchpin that could be put into the mix that would have somehow saved the people of the American continent from European expansion.
Even if you inoculated them all against the Spanish diseases, you've still got a wealthy 17th century force, complete with firearms and metallurgy, against what's basically a loose confederation of stone-age aboriginals.
They weren't "stone age". They had metal working technology, and lots of other technology too. They just didn't have gunpowder yet. If it weren't for the disease, there's no way that a small group of conquistadores could have conquered them, and the europeans didn't have the logistics to send over large armies. The Aztecs used to field armies in the hundreds of thousands.
You're still talking about a warfare technology gap that's about 1000 years apart. And that's just the self-defense part of the equation.
Have you read "guns, germs, and steel?" The germs were by FAR the biggest factor (well, that and the political strife caused by their empire falling apart because of those germs. The "guns" of the time sucked- they weren't machine guns! they were pretty much inferior to arrows, and were only effective because they frightened the troops that hadn't seen them before. Steel was a bit better, sure, but it's not like some overwhelming advantage.
Do you really think 600 guys with steel swords could have conquered an empire of millions? That's ludicrous. The Europeans could not possibly have sent over the kind of armies they'd need for that.
I've seen Jared Diamond speak personally.
And yes, I think the Europeans could have conquered an empire millions, because they collectively did it just about everywhere on the globe, and many of the American cultures just weren't capable of withstanding the onslaught that would have befallen them.
It wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did with disease as a factor, but it would have happened eventually. There were too many resources abundant in the New World, and too little opposition in every metric but numerical count of opposition combatants. Instead of a few Spanish conquistadores giving everyone smallpox, you'd have had England and France and Germany and Italy and the Netherlands and Norway and Portugal and everyone else chasing down that sweet American gold (and land, and whatever) eventually.
And like I said, the Spanish didn't win the long game by killing everyone; they did it by converting them all to Catholicism.
The big difference, of course, is that all their other conquests happened much later, with much better military technology and the experience of conquering the new world. They weren't using steel and horses to conquer China for example- they were using repeating rifles and opium. If they hadn't taken that first, easy step into the New World, they might never have developed the technology or politics to go around colonizing the world.
Another thing I would counter that with is that they didn't win the long game anywhere else. Africa, India, China, and all the other places that Europeans tried to conquer all eventually re-gained their independence and continued their culture. But the Native Americans were just thoroughly destroyed, and it's hard to even know what their culture was like. It might well be the worst holocaust in all of history.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Oh, of course not. But there's not a magical lynchpin that could be put into the mix that would have somehow saved the people of the American continent from European expansion.
Even if you inoculated them all against the Spanish diseases, you've still got a wealthy 17th century force, complete with firearms and metallurgy, against what's basically a loose confederation of stone-age aboriginals.
Seriously dude, you are so full of shit on this.
That description is accurate for the peoples that european explorers met after their civilizations had already been destroyed by disease. With the exception of initial spanish conquest of the Aztecs no europeans really saw what the native civlizations were like prior to having the majority of their population wiped out.
THANK YOU
There are a whole lot of misconceptions about native American cultures being tossed around in here. I don't even know where to start (so, I won't)
and as to the O.S. Card novel, if you want my advice, don't read it. It's terrible. (the only reason I even finished it is because it was one of the few books in jail that wasn't a romance novel or Dan brown. Don't follow my example)
as for the question of the thread, maybe go back in time and kill the first group of Homo erectus? No people to fuck it up might make the world a much better place (reading too much of the political crap around lately=severely misanthropic mood)
And there were a couple of groups in N. America that had copper working as well. They had copper pits, and made copper tools. It looks like some of the other groups were starting to pick it up as well in the Northeastern part of the US. Of course they got hammered from the waves of disease.
Wait, what if you blew up and sunk the natural land bridge, preventing early tribes of people from settling in the Americas? Then you'd have a whole virgin continent ready to go for the Europeans and no one dies horribly.
It wasn't a "bridge" but a good sized chunk of the continent. Check out a map of the Bering Straights area adjusted for ice-age sea levels.
There was a downright huge area of land between Asia and North America.
and regardless, people then did in fact have boats and knew how to survive pretty damn well in Ice age marine environments. There's all kinds of ways people still would have made it into the Americas without that route.
In fact, the first people may not have used the Siberia-Alaska route at all. There is a theory in North American archaeology that the first peoples in the Americas were from Europe.
Seriously, if you guys are interested in Native cultures, grab some books on archaeology. There are some incredibly interesting things happening in the field right now. Hit me up if you want some suggestions for reading
Eupfhoria on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Another thing I would counter that with is that they didn't win the long game anywhere else. Africa, India, China, and all the other places that Europeans tried to conquer all eventually re-gained their independence and continued their culture. But the Native Americans were just thoroughly destroyed, and it's hard to even know what their culture was like. It might well be the worst holocaust in all of history.
Oh, I'm sure it is, though mostly unintentional with regard to the disease. To me, the most devastating thing about it was the way the Vatican purposefully destroyed "pagan" artifacts that could have helped us understand those cultures better.
I think along the same lines as electricitylikesme. Which I knew already, and yes, does worry me somewhat.
I would take back a single book.
Firstly though, I'd go back a year or so and make a killing on the stock market. I'd furnish my recent-past self with details of the immediate future, so recent-past self can benefit. He may or may not copy my plan, leading to continuing "copying", if time allows this sort of thing. My "present-self" would use this year in research and training. I could always go back in time again if I needed more time to prepare the book.
I would go back to ancient Greece or ancient Rome. I'd want to be able to talk to some philosophers.
I would bring back with me, among other less important things, one book.
It would be a book of Civilization, of sorts. It would have tips and tricks of various sorts to help people about. What follows are some elements of this -rather lengthy, I'm sure- book.
It would be written in the language of the day, either Greek or Latin. It would include a "rosseta stone" like section with partial translations in a wide variety of languages, to assist those who don't know or have forgotten the language it was written in. I don't personally have the charisma to spread ideas myself, in any language, so I'd be looking for someone influential to do it for me. It would be a very slow processes, taking probably a few generations before more than a handful of people had heard of this book. I'd try to avoid getting executed for doing this, which I consider very likely; regardless of the time to which I travel.
As electricitylikesme was talking about, math is important. The book would include all sorts of math concepts, with basic counting and numerals explained pictorially in as much detail as was possible. Geometry, arithmetic, algebra, calculus. That would have to be the core of it. The contemporaries of the time could have handled all of that, though keeping the knowledge in active use is trickier, which I'll get into later.
There would be diagrams and explanation of various tools. All manner of items, most gone over quite briefly. Stirrups. The arch. Proper steel. Ships clocks, lenses, ploughs, etc. Along with this would be some useful charts: A map of the world; Map of the sky; A calendar and timekeeping system; Detailed anatomy of the human body; Various physical constants. And so on. More advanced devices would be covered more sparingly, though a mechanical computer would be discussed in detail (in the math section as well).
With math, and with tools, we can get into the hard stuff, which is science. Bits of information would be given here, and some basic concepts of physics, medicine, agriculture, metallurgy, navigation, engineering, genetics and so on would be covered. The concepts would be arranged in a roughly chronological order. Many of these concepts are interconnected, and require much previous understanding before they can be used. An internal combustion engine isn't much use if you don't understand thermodynamics, and can't cast the metal to enough precision. The more "advanced" concepts would be towards the back of the book. Of course this information may allow technologies to advance in a different order than before.
The book would contain errors. A number a bit too big here. A chart a bit off scale there. A tool not assembled quite properly. A logical contradiction. Some mistakes would be obvious; apparent to anyone who put time into understanding the subject. Others would be much more subtle, apparent only upon very detailed analysis or observation, or of testing a device or concept. Now, why feed these people -some- false information? To really nail the concept of the scientific method into them. Yes, science would be explained in detail. The section devoted to the Scientific Method would probably be equal in length to the math or tool sections. It would be huge, with all sorts of example experiments. But despite this, it is all too easy to treat this magic book as a book of perfect knowledge. The book would become the source of knowledge - not science. The goal of including errors is to encourage those reading the book to not trust it 100%, to try things out for themselves and not consider the book to be correct in an absolute, theological sort of way.
Speaking of theology. There'd have to be some moral lessons in here. I'd have to do some asking around there, since I'm no authority on such things. But going back in time and handing out, effectively for free, all manner of advanced technology could have some implications. Like, say, the recipients of said knowledge going off and conquering the world once they advance far past their rivals. It could also badly upset the social balance present in those societies, causing internal strife. Including proverb-type lessons into the book seems like a decent idea, from a wide variety of cultures and moral systems, and throughout history. The goal of the book is to not become Holy; but this may be unavoidable. It should be considered a text to study and contemplate, more reminiscent of Eastern Philosophy, rather than a book of laws like those found in the Abrahamic religions.
The book would include only a single law. That is to propagate the book as far as wide as possible. To copy the book, in its entirety, to as great a detail as possible, while changing absolutely nothing in the text. The book will always be given away, to anyone who wants one, free of charge. Dismissal, or destruction of the book is not a crime. People are encouraged to read it, but it is not required. No author is listed.
The last page contains a diagram for a time machine.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
Another benefit to delaying "first contact"- the Spanish in 1492 were one of the scariest civilizations that you could possibly meet. They had just ended the reconquista, which lasted for eight hundred years, and their whole culture was oriented for total war at all cost. They felt they had a mission from god to convert all the heathens, and kill the ones that wouldn't convert. The Victorian English weren't nice guys either, but they seem far less nasty than the medieval Spanish.
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Oh, of course not. But there's not a magical lynchpin that could be put into the mix that would have somehow saved the people of the American continent from European expansion.
Even if you inoculated them all against the Spanish diseases, you've still got a wealthy 17th century force, complete with firearms and metallurgy, against what's basically a loose confederation of stone-age aboriginals.
They weren't "stone age". They had metal working technology, and lots of other technology too. They just didn't have gunpowder yet. If it weren't for the disease, there's no way that a small group of conquistadores could have conquered them, and the europeans didn't have the logistics to send over large armies. The Aztecs used to field armies in the hundreds of thousands.
You're still talking about a warfare technology gap that's about 1000 years apart. And that's just the self-defense part of the equation.
And Spain couldn't commit the bulk of their forces to a war in North America. The Spanish forces were tied up in The Four Years war. The reality is that no European power was in a position to commit the bulk of their forces to the Americas. There were no large armies coming.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Second to the guy that said "kill Constantine."
Sadly, though, it seems that new religions rarely instate themselves wholecloth; rather, they just seem to be a replacement for what already was in place. If it hadn't been Christianity or Islam, it would have been Judaism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or Ba'alism or Asatru, and people would have figured out a way to kill in its name just the same.
Instead of a few Spanish conquistadores giving everyone smallpox, you'd have had England and France and Germany and Italy and the Netherlands and Norway and Portugal and everyone else chasing down that sweet American gold (and land, and whatever) eventually.
That is too speculative. It depends on how much effort they would be willing to put into shit, whether it made more sense just to trade with them using alcohol and other shit, how the local cultures would have adapted to new technologies, etc.
The Native Americans of the northern continent adapted to horses and guns fairly well, but their technological cultural advances never really kept up.
Honestly, the whole thing was a lot like breaking the Prime Directive.
Fairly? In all of history, the Comanche were probably second only to the Mongols for absolute badassery on horseback.
The book would include only a single law. That is to propagate the book as far as wide as possible. To copy the book, in its entirety, to as great a detail as possible, while changing absolutely nothing in the text. The book will always be given away, to anyone who wants one, free of charge. Dismissal, or destruction of the book is not a crime. People are encouraged to read it, but it is not required. No author is listed.
This wouldn't work, unfortunately. You unuderestimate how hard it is to copy an entire book (especially one the size you describe) by hand. People who commit the time and energy to do it will not do it for free. And they will not do it perfectly, either. To err is human, and to err while transcribing a document of this size is unavoidable.
I think I'd take some books on political and economic theory and give them to Shang Yang, in the hopes that he'd focus a little more on rewards than punishments, and maybe to not be such an asshole all the time.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? You and I could be having the same discussion looking out our windows to the same world but with very different constellations in the sky.
But more likely, in your scenario, life would go down a completely different evolutionary path right from the start. Which means this earth would be completely alien to ours, and you and I would never exist.
The book would include only a single law. That is to propagate the book as far as wide as possible. To copy the book, in its entirety, to as great a detail as possible, while changing absolutely nothing in the text. The book will always be given away, to anyone who wants one, free of charge. Dismissal, or destruction of the book is not a crime. People are encouraged to read it, but it is not required. No author is listed.
This wouldn't work, unfortunately. You unuderestimate how hard it is to copy an entire book (especially one the size you describe) by hand. People who commit the time and energy to do it will not do it for free. And they will not do it perfectly, either. To err is human, and to err while transcribing a document of this size is unavoidable.
Indeed. Of the 6000 or so artifacts that comprise every known copy or fragment of the Christian scripture in greek from the first several centuries not a single fragment covering the same text is identical. No two early copies of any part of the christian scriptures can be found with at least differences in spelling if not content.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Change history? Yes please! World War I, specifically. My favorite essay on the subject-
The Armistice of Desperation by Dennis F. Showalter
World War I is increasing recognized as the defining event of the twentieth century, with its total wars, its genocides,its weapons of mass destruction. What might have resulted if the war had ended in a matter of weeks, as virtually all the experts predicted?
A quick decision would have had to come in the West, in 1914 the only possible theater for mass industrial war. The most plausible scenario begins with more agressive leadership at all levels of the French and German armies. By the end of 1914, France had suffered almost a million casualties; German losses in the same period were around three-quarters of a million. These were the highest ratios of the whole war. What if generals and regimental officers had driven their men forward even more ruthlessly during the battles of the Frontier and on the Marne? What if the Germans had been even more willing to exchange lives for ground in the Ypres Salient?
This reaction fully accorded with existing doctrines of the offensive. It might have achieved some tactical victories- a more precipitate German retreat after the Marne, for example, or the capture of Ypres in a final desperate lunge. These victories, however, were unlikely to be exploited by the survivors. Attacks of this intensity instead would have depleted, perhaps exhausted, already limited ammunition reserves to a point that forces more and more reliance on numbers that were vulnerable and courage that went unrequited. A 20 or 25 percent increase in casualty rates seems a reasonable immediate consequence in the battlefield environment of 1914. Administrative systems, particularly medical services, might have buckled under the strain, destabilizing the "cultures of competence" that hold armies together by regularly providing food, care, and mail. Morale in the line, at the rear, and on the home front was likely to waver, if not collapse, as losses increased exponentially with each week- to no end. Gridlock on the fighting line, revolution at home- such a series of events was in fact feared by prewar decision-makers. Facing its reality, the combatants might well have negotiated an armistice of desperation.
The titular "victor" is unimportant. Europe's great powers undertook World War I for negative, not positive, reasons. Even Germany's war aims in 1914 were a cobbled-together post facto shopping list. The scales of destruction and disorder accompanying a quick end to an unwanted apocalypse were likely to generate at all levels a renewed sense of Europe as a community- and a consequent sense of what it took to sustain that community. International order would be stabilized, with regional powers no longer given the kind of latitude the Balkan states enjoyed between 1911 and 1914. Germany and Russia in particular were likely to undertake domestic housecleanings. In the Second Reich, the diminished prestige of kaiser and army favored the introduction of a genuine parliamentary government. Russia, never suffering the exsanguination of 1915 to 1916, was in a position to continue its economic and political development.
As for Vladmir Lenin, in this alternate world he died an exile in Switzerland. Adolf Hitler became a familiar figure in Munich's bohemian circles. Picasso never created Guernica, and Albert Einstein spent a long and fruitful life as a physicist and philanthropist. It was a Europe safe for men with briefcases and potbellies, whose younger generations occasionally bemoaned its ordinariness. But while memories of the Six Months' War of 1914 to 1915 endured, older heads thanked God and the fates that they no longer lived in such interesting times.
I forgot just how much of history would be changed. America would not be dominant, we'd still love/hate Britain, there'd be no Communism, no Red China, no Vietnam. Hemingway would never write A Farwell to Arms, Heller would never write Catch-22.
Lots of changes, with perhaps a better outcome than just straight up shooting Hitler.
Change history? Yes please! World War I, specifically. My favorite essay on the subject-
The Armistice of Desperation by Dennis F. Showalter
World War I is increasing recognized as the defining event of the twentieth century, with its total wars, its genocides,its weapons of mass destruction. What might have resulted if the war had ended in a matter of weeks, as virtually all the experts predicted?
A quick decision would have had to come in the West, in 1914 the only possible theater for mass industrial war. The most plausible scenario begins with more agressive leadership at all levels of the French and German armies. By the end of 1914, France had suffered almost a million casualties; German losses in the same period were around three-quarters of a million. These were the highest ratios of the whole war. What if generals and regimental officers had driven their men forward even more ruthlessly during the battles of the Frontier and on the Marne? What if the Germans had been even more willing to exchange lives for ground in the Ypres Salient?
This reaction fully accorded with existing doctrines of the offensive. It might have achieved some tactical victories- a more precipitate German retreat after the Marne, for example, or the capture of Ypres in a final desperate lunge. These victories, however, were unlikely to be exploited by the survivors. Attacks of this intensity instead would have depleted, perhaps exhausted, already limited ammunition reserves to a point that forces more and more reliance on numbers that were vulnerable and courage that went unrequited. A 20 or 25 percent increase in casualty rates seems a reasonable immediate consequence in the battlefield environment of 1914. Administrative systems, particularly medical services, might have buckled under the strain, destabilizing the "cultures of competence" that hold armies together by regularly providing food, care, and mail. Morale in the line, at the rear, and on the home front was likely to waver, if not collapse, as losses increased exponentially with each week- to no end. Gridlock on the fighting line, revolution at home- such a series of events was in fact feared by prewar decision-makers. Facing its reality, the combatants might well have negotiated an armistice of desperation.
The titular "victor" is unimportant. Europe's great powers undertook World War I for negative, not positive, reasons. Even Germany's war aims in 1914 were a cobbled-together post facto shopping list. The scales of destruction and disorder accompanying a quick end to an unwanted apocalypse were likely to generate at all levels a renewed sense of Europe as a community- and a consequent sense of what it took to sustain that community. International order would be stabilized, with regional powers no longer given the kind of latitude the Balkan states enjoyed between 1911 and 1914. Germany and Russia in particular were likely to undertake domestic housecleanings. In the Second Reich, the diminished prestige of kaiser and army favored the introduction of a genuine parliamentary government. Russia, never suffering the exsanguination of 1915 to 1916, was in a position to continue its economic and political development.
As for Vladmir Lenin, in this alternate world he died an exile in Switzerland. Adolf Hitler became a familiar figure in Munich's bohemian circles. Picasso never created Guernica, and Albert Einstein spent a long and fruitful life as a physicist and philanthropist. It was a Europe safe for men with briefcases and potbellies, whose younger generations occasionally bemoaned its ordinariness. But while memories of the Six Months' War of 1914 to 1915 endured, older heads thanked God and the fates that they no longer lived in such interesting times.
I forgot just how much of history would be changed. America would not be dominant, we'd still love/hate Britain, there'd be no Communism, no Red China, no Vietnam. Hemingway would never write A Farwell to Arms, Heller would never write Catch-22.
Lots of changes, with perhaps a better outcome than just straight up shooting Hitler.
Or, another possibility: The Russian Revolution happens anyway, Stalin or someone like him takes over, and then proceeds to conquer all of Europe since they wouldn't have any kind of modern military to oppose the Red army.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Trying reaaaaalllly hard not to lose my shit, here.
Or, another possibility: The Russian Revolution happens anyway, Stalin or someone like him takes over, and then proceeds to conquer all of Europe since they wouldn't have any kind of modern military to oppose the Red army.
How would it happen without World War I causing massive discontent with Nicholas II? Plus, Lenin's still in Switzerland, so he can't lead the revolution or advise the revolutionaries. And "modern" military? That's ridiculous! One of the causes of World War I is that the powers (NOT Russia) had purchased so many guns, artillery pieces, and ammunition that they felt invincible. With the crap industrial base that Russia had, Stalin would've gotten his ass kicked if he tried anything.
Or, another possibility: The Russian Revolution happens anyway, Stalin or someone like him takes over, and then proceeds to conquer all of Europe since they wouldn't have any kind of modern military to oppose the Red army.
How would it happen without World War I causing massive discontent with Nicholas II? Plus, Lenin's still in Switzerland, so he can't lead the revolution or advise the revolutionaries. And "modern" military? That's ridiculous! One of the causes of World War I is that the powers (NOT Russia) had purchased so many guns, artillery pieces, and ammunition that they felt invincible. With the crap industrial base that Russia had, Stalin would've gotten his ass kicked if he tried anything.
I'm not sure. I would say that World War I was the immediate catalyst, but there were also a lot of long-term factors going on. The czars were not exactly popular, and there were lots of people talking about communism besides just Lenin. I'd say there was a very high chance of revolution even without WWI.
By "modern military" i meant WW2 era tech, like tanks and dive bombers. The sort of stuff that Europe wouldn't be building if they had never-ending peace, but Russia might very well build anyway after a violent revolution.
Hell if I had a time machine, I'd go forward, not back. Maybe several centuries forward. I want to see if humanity ever achieves interstellar flight and if we've branched out beyond our solar system. It's sad that I'll most likely never live to see that day.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? .
Funny, I just re-read Gould's "Wonderful Life" and he makes the argument that it is rather terrifying that it took half of the projected age of our earth to evolve consciousness (i.e. us).
Giving us a few billion years head start could maybe help us outrace the eventual nova-death of our planet, but who knows.
My point is that we are in a race, and the race is against the sun.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? You and I could be having the same discussion looking out our windows to the same world but with very different constellations in the sky.
But more likely, in your scenario, life would go down a completely different evolutionary path right from the start. Which means this earth would be completely alien to ours, and you and I would never exist.
Well consider this, life went from simple multicellular stuff to civilization in about half a billion years. Bringing back modern multicellular stuff, maybe you could do it even sooner.
Now, add to that the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor. The half life of U-235 is quite a bit less than that of U-238, meaning that uranium ore in the past was naturally much more enriched. Enough so that as recently as 1.7b years ago, there was at least one fission reactor that formed naturally just from having the right rocks and water and such in the right places. Earlier than that, it would have been far more enriched still.
Any civilization that arose several billion years ago, would have done it on a world where making a nuclear reactor would be easy. No enrichment needed, you could do it with just natural uranium ore. You could have nuclear power discovered during or prior to an industrial revolution even.
Also, if you're able to get things going really far back, maybe you could get civilization up and running back when Mars still had oceans, or at least a much thicker atmosphere.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? .
Funny, I just re-read Gould's "Wonderful Life" and he makes the argument that it is rather terrifying that it took half of the projected age of our earth to evolve consciousness (i.e. us).
Giving us a few billion years head start could maybe help us outrace the eventual nova-death of our planet, but who knows.
My point is that we are in a race, and the race is against the sun.
Dude we're not gonna beat the sun. Just accept it. When it goes, we go. Hell, even before it goes supernova it'll start changing it's temperature and that'll be enough to kill us.
Even if we could somehow travel to another solar system, the increasing entropy of the universe would doom us not too long afterwards.
go too far back in time so I'd lose the ability to use the time machine as many times as I wanted to until the space time continuum came crashing down.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? .
Funny, I just re-read Gould's "Wonderful Life" and he makes the argument that it is rather terrifying that it took half of the projected age of our earth to evolve consciousness (i.e. us).
Giving us a few billion years head start could maybe help us outrace the eventual nova-death of our planet, but who knows.
My point is that we are in a race, and the race is against the sun.
Dude we're not gonna beat the sun. Just accept it. When it goes, we go. Hell, even before it goes supernova it'll start changing it's temperature and that'll be enough to kill us.
Even if we could somehow travel to another solar system, the increasing entropy of the universe would doom us not too long afterwards.
There's gonna be loads of time left in the universe after the sun goes out.
The sun's got another six billions years until it's a red giant and the universe has billions and billions and billions of years left in it after that. This wiki article I'm looking at say that it's 2 trillion years from being the end of our ability to detect galaxies beyond the supercluster and there's plenty of time after that.
Now that's a thought, at some point in the future a civilization will exist where they could never prove that the rest of the universe ever existed. Will Carl Sagan be their version of Hercules or Jesus?
Of course humankind will probably be extinct long before the sun starts heating up too much anyway.
I'd gather the hardiest plants, bacteria, algae, etc that I could find, go back in time to the primordial ooze when life was just beginning and dump all that shit in there, giving life on Earth a several billion year head start. And since I'd be stuck there, I guess I'd just drown myself in the pool and maybe some of the flora crawling on me will help out in my mission.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? .
Funny, I just re-read Gould's "Wonderful Life" and he makes the argument that it is rather terrifying that it took half of the projected age of our earth to evolve consciousness (i.e. us).
Giving us a few billion years head start could maybe help us outrace the eventual nova-death of our planet, but who knows.
My point is that we are in a race, and the race is against the sun.
Dude we're not gonna beat the sun. Just accept it. When it goes, we go. Hell, even before it goes supernova it'll start changing it's temperature and that'll be enough to kill us.
Even if we could somehow travel to another solar system, the increasing entropy of the universe would doom us not too long afterwards.
There's gonna be loads of time left in the universe after the sun goes out.
The sun's got another six billions years until it's a red giant and the universe has billions and billions and billions of years left in it after that. This wiki article I'm looking at say that it's 2 trillion years from being the end of our ability to detect galaxies beyond the supercluster and there's plenty of time after that.
Now that's a thought, at some point in the future a civilization will exist where they could never prove that the rest of the universe ever existed. Will Carl Sagan be their version of Hercules or Jesus?
Of course humankind will probably be extinct long before the sun starts heating up too much anyway.
and then, the dominion of the Octopoid will be unchallenged !
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
It always bemuses me that people think it's so easy to change a civilisation. We have plenty of modern-day proof in the form of third world countries that it's pretty damn difficult to get people to do simple things, like wear condoms, learn to read and write, not invade neighbouring countries. Hell, in some areas of our own countries we can't even get children invested in learning. And yet everyone wants to do the noble thing and go back and magically better the entire world by teaching the Greeks how to build washing machines or something.
Frankly, with a time machine (and a hypothetical lack of butterflies), the only thing I'd consider doing is retrieving stuff that can be put to good use in the modern day. Better fossil records, maybe; a decent record of the event that killed the dinosaurs if possible, that sort of thing. Trying to fix the present by altering the past is generally a noble but extremely difficult goal; you'd have to have enough manpower to have a global effect, as well as ways of overriding the social paradigms of the civilisations you're trying to affect, which would probably include lethal force with which to defend yourself (with all the history we have of the past millennia, it's amazing people think our ancestors weren't incredibly xenophobic superstitious buttheads).
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I'd head back to Ancient Greece around the time they were publishing their near-calculus geometry work. They had organized academia and schooling at the time, but the were missing the concept of coordinate geometry. But they were also open enough to the idea that these were fundamental principles that if you showed them something bold and amazing they'd study it. So I'd take the modern number system back, and as many math textbooks as I could.
Getting them to start developing calculus (and optics) would be the first thing, but I'd then use any position I could obtain to have all the content of these books chiselled into stone walls, but also transcribed and widely disseminated.
Because the development of calculus, and the field of astronomy, laid the foundations for the renaissance and the age of reason (and they were aware their were planets at the time that did not go around the earth). Shift that to happening a few thousand years earlier and you open the possibility for a few thousand years of technological advance.
There was a computer game where you did this. You flew around in your time-travelling space ship, collected offering from various races and then went back in time to give them their own offerings and help them advance. It was set to a background of space battles for some reason.
Myself, I'd go back and bury confusing fossil records and copies of the Book of Mormon in odd places.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
You know, "If I had a time machine, I'd kill Hitler" is a classic for a reason.
Unlike some other options, the chances of things getting worse if Hitler was killed, say, before or during WWI is pretty astronomically small.
Plus, before the trip, you could have a contest where people would bid for a chance to go back in time with you and kill Hitler. With the millions of dollars that would raise, you could contribute to your favorite charity before you go and then have enough of a bankroll to make that sports almanac you take back with you pay off handsomely.
I've heard theories that if the Nazi's hadn't risen up America was very likely to become a fascist government.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You know, "If I had a time machine, I'd kill Hitler" is a classic for a reason.
Unlike some other options, the chances of things getting worse if Hitler was killed, say, before or during WWI is pretty astronomically small.
Plus, before the trip, you could have a contest where people would bid for a chance to go back in time with you and kill Hitler. With the millions of dollars that would raise, you could contribute to your favorite charity before you go and then have enough of a bankroll to make that sports almanac you take back with you pay off handsomely.
I've heard theories that if the Nazi's hadn't risen up America was very likely to become a fascist government.
I might also try to turn Africa into a political and economic powerhouse with tomes of modern political, economic, and engineering knowledge. That's kind of what I try to do in my Civ games at least.
Posts
The Native Americans of the northern continent adapted to horses and guns fairly well, but their technological cultural advances never really kept up.
Honestly, the whole thing was a lot like breaking the Prime Directive.
The big difference, of course, is that all their other conquests happened much later, with much better military technology and the experience of conquering the new world. They weren't using steel and horses to conquer China for example- they were using repeating rifles and opium. If they hadn't taken that first, easy step into the New World, they might never have developed the technology or politics to go around colonizing the world.
Another thing I would counter that with is that they didn't win the long game anywhere else. Africa, India, China, and all the other places that Europeans tried to conquer all eventually re-gained their independence and continued their culture. But the Native Americans were just thoroughly destroyed, and it's hard to even know what their culture was like. It might well be the worst holocaust in all of history.
And there were a couple of groups in N. America that had copper working as well. They had copper pits, and made copper tools. It looks like some of the other groups were starting to pick it up as well in the Northeastern part of the US. Of course they got hammered from the waves of disease.
and regardless, people then did in fact have boats and knew how to survive pretty damn well in Ice age marine environments. There's all kinds of ways people still would have made it into the Americas without that route.
In fact, the first people may not have used the Siberia-Alaska route at all. There is a theory in North American archaeology that the first peoples in the Americas were from Europe.
Seriously, if you guys are interested in Native cultures, grab some books on archaeology. There are some incredibly interesting things happening in the field right now. Hit me up if you want some suggestions for reading
Oh, I'm sure it is, though mostly unintentional with regard to the disease. To me, the most devastating thing about it was the way the Vatican purposefully destroyed "pagan" artifacts that could have helped us understand those cultures better.
I would take back a single book.
Firstly though, I'd go back a year or so and make a killing on the stock market. I'd furnish my recent-past self with details of the immediate future, so recent-past self can benefit. He may or may not copy my plan, leading to continuing "copying", if time allows this sort of thing. My "present-self" would use this year in research and training. I could always go back in time again if I needed more time to prepare the book.
I would go back to ancient Greece or ancient Rome. I'd want to be able to talk to some philosophers.
I would bring back with me, among other less important things, one book.
It would be a book of Civilization, of sorts. It would have tips and tricks of various sorts to help people about. What follows are some elements of this -rather lengthy, I'm sure- book.
It would be written in the language of the day, either Greek or Latin. It would include a "rosseta stone" like section with partial translations in a wide variety of languages, to assist those who don't know or have forgotten the language it was written in. I don't personally have the charisma to spread ideas myself, in any language, so I'd be looking for someone influential to do it for me. It would be a very slow processes, taking probably a few generations before more than a handful of people had heard of this book. I'd try to avoid getting executed for doing this, which I consider very likely; regardless of the time to which I travel.
As electricitylikesme was talking about, math is important. The book would include all sorts of math concepts, with basic counting and numerals explained pictorially in as much detail as was possible. Geometry, arithmetic, algebra, calculus. That would have to be the core of it. The contemporaries of the time could have handled all of that, though keeping the knowledge in active use is trickier, which I'll get into later.
There would be diagrams and explanation of various tools. All manner of items, most gone over quite briefly. Stirrups. The arch. Proper steel. Ships clocks, lenses, ploughs, etc. Along with this would be some useful charts: A map of the world; Map of the sky; A calendar and timekeeping system; Detailed anatomy of the human body; Various physical constants. And so on. More advanced devices would be covered more sparingly, though a mechanical computer would be discussed in detail (in the math section as well).
With math, and with tools, we can get into the hard stuff, which is science. Bits of information would be given here, and some basic concepts of physics, medicine, agriculture, metallurgy, navigation, engineering, genetics and so on would be covered. The concepts would be arranged in a roughly chronological order. Many of these concepts are interconnected, and require much previous understanding before they can be used. An internal combustion engine isn't much use if you don't understand thermodynamics, and can't cast the metal to enough precision. The more "advanced" concepts would be towards the back of the book. Of course this information may allow technologies to advance in a different order than before.
The book would contain errors. A number a bit too big here. A chart a bit off scale there. A tool not assembled quite properly. A logical contradiction. Some mistakes would be obvious; apparent to anyone who put time into understanding the subject. Others would be much more subtle, apparent only upon very detailed analysis or observation, or of testing a device or concept. Now, why feed these people -some- false information? To really nail the concept of the scientific method into them. Yes, science would be explained in detail. The section devoted to the Scientific Method would probably be equal in length to the math or tool sections. It would be huge, with all sorts of example experiments. But despite this, it is all too easy to treat this magic book as a book of perfect knowledge. The book would become the source of knowledge - not science. The goal of including errors is to encourage those reading the book to not trust it 100%, to try things out for themselves and not consider the book to be correct in an absolute, theological sort of way.
Speaking of theology. There'd have to be some moral lessons in here. I'd have to do some asking around there, since I'm no authority on such things. But going back in time and handing out, effectively for free, all manner of advanced technology could have some implications. Like, say, the recipients of said knowledge going off and conquering the world once they advance far past their rivals. It could also badly upset the social balance present in those societies, causing internal strife. Including proverb-type lessons into the book seems like a decent idea, from a wide variety of cultures and moral systems, and throughout history. The goal of the book is to not become Holy; but this may be unavoidable. It should be considered a text to study and contemplate, more reminiscent of Eastern Philosophy, rather than a book of laws like those found in the Abrahamic religions.
The book would include only a single law. That is to propagate the book as far as wide as possible. To copy the book, in its entirety, to as great a detail as possible, while changing absolutely nothing in the text. The book will always be given away, to anyone who wants one, free of charge. Dismissal, or destruction of the book is not a crime. People are encouraged to read it, but it is not required. No author is listed.
The last page contains a diagram for a time machine.
And Spain couldn't commit the bulk of their forces to a war in North America. The Spanish forces were tied up in The Four Years war. The reality is that no European power was in a position to commit the bulk of their forces to the Americas. There were no large armies coming.
Sadly, though, it seems that new religions rarely instate themselves wholecloth; rather, they just seem to be a replacement for what already was in place. If it hadn't been Christianity or Islam, it would have been Judaism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism or Ba'alism or Asatru, and people would have figured out a way to kill in its name just the same.
Fairly? In all of history, the Comanche were probably second only to the Mongols for absolute badassery on horseback.
This wouldn't work, unfortunately. You unuderestimate how hard it is to copy an entire book (especially one the size you describe) by hand. People who commit the time and energy to do it will not do it for free. And they will not do it perfectly, either. To err is human, and to err while transcribing a document of this size is unavoidable.
You don't go for the small changes, do you
But what would be the benefit of that, though? So life begins a few billion years earlier. But we're not in a race against anyone. What difference does it make if the human race started a few billion years earlier or later? You and I could be having the same discussion looking out our windows to the same world but with very different constellations in the sky.
But more likely, in your scenario, life would go down a completely different evolutionary path right from the start. Which means this earth would be completely alien to ours, and you and I would never exist.
Indeed. Of the 6000 or so artifacts that comprise every known copy or fragment of the Christian scripture in greek from the first several centuries not a single fragment covering the same text is identical. No two early copies of any part of the christian scriptures can be found with at least differences in spelling if not content.
The Armistice of Desperation by Dennis F. Showalter
A quick decision would have had to come in the West, in 1914 the only possible theater for mass industrial war. The most plausible scenario begins with more agressive leadership at all levels of the French and German armies. By the end of 1914, France had suffered almost a million casualties; German losses in the same period were around three-quarters of a million. These were the highest ratios of the whole war. What if generals and regimental officers had driven their men forward even more ruthlessly during the battles of the Frontier and on the Marne? What if the Germans had been even more willing to exchange lives for ground in the Ypres Salient?
This reaction fully accorded with existing doctrines of the offensive. It might have achieved some tactical victories- a more precipitate German retreat after the Marne, for example, or the capture of Ypres in a final desperate lunge. These victories, however, were unlikely to be exploited by the survivors. Attacks of this intensity instead would have depleted, perhaps exhausted, already limited ammunition reserves to a point that forces more and more reliance on numbers that were vulnerable and courage that went unrequited. A 20 or 25 percent increase in casualty rates seems a reasonable immediate consequence in the battlefield environment of 1914. Administrative systems, particularly medical services, might have buckled under the strain, destabilizing the "cultures of competence" that hold armies together by regularly providing food, care, and mail. Morale in the line, at the rear, and on the home front was likely to waver, if not collapse, as losses increased exponentially with each week- to no end. Gridlock on the fighting line, revolution at home- such a series of events was in fact feared by prewar decision-makers. Facing its reality, the combatants might well have negotiated an armistice of desperation.
The titular "victor" is unimportant. Europe's great powers undertook World War I for negative, not positive, reasons. Even Germany's war aims in 1914 were a cobbled-together post facto shopping list. The scales of destruction and disorder accompanying a quick end to an unwanted apocalypse were likely to generate at all levels a renewed sense of Europe as a community- and a consequent sense of what it took to sustain that community. International order would be stabilized, with regional powers no longer given the kind of latitude the Balkan states enjoyed between 1911 and 1914. Germany and Russia in particular were likely to undertake domestic housecleanings. In the Second Reich, the diminished prestige of kaiser and army favored the introduction of a genuine parliamentary government. Russia, never suffering the exsanguination of 1915 to 1916, was in a position to continue its economic and political development.
As for Vladmir Lenin, in this alternate world he died an exile in Switzerland. Adolf Hitler became a familiar figure in Munich's bohemian circles. Picasso never created Guernica, and Albert Einstein spent a long and fruitful life as a physicist and philanthropist. It was a Europe safe for men with briefcases and potbellies, whose younger generations occasionally bemoaned its ordinariness. But while memories of the Six Months' War of 1914 to 1915 endured, older heads thanked God and the fates that they no longer lived in such interesting times.
I forgot just how much of history would be changed. America would not be dominant, we'd still love/hate Britain, there'd be no Communism, no Red China, no Vietnam. Hemingway would never write A Farwell to Arms, Heller would never write Catch-22.
Lots of changes, with perhaps a better outcome than just straight up shooting Hitler.
Or, another possibility: The Russian Revolution happens anyway, Stalin or someone like him takes over, and then proceeds to conquer all of Europe since they wouldn't have any kind of modern military to oppose the Red army.
How would it happen without World War I causing massive discontent with Nicholas II? Plus, Lenin's still in Switzerland, so he can't lead the revolution or advise the revolutionaries. And "modern" military? That's ridiculous! One of the causes of World War I is that the powers (NOT Russia) had purchased so many guns, artillery pieces, and ammunition that they felt invincible. With the crap industrial base that Russia had, Stalin would've gotten his ass kicked if he tried anything.
That said, a massive war was in many ways inevitable, unless you were to somehow prevent or slow to a crawl industrialization.
I'm not sure. I would say that World War I was the immediate catalyst, but there were also a lot of long-term factors going on. The czars were not exactly popular, and there were lots of people talking about communism besides just Lenin. I'd say there was a very high chance of revolution even without WWI.
By "modern military" i meant WW2 era tech, like tanks and dive bombers. The sort of stuff that Europe wouldn't be building if they had never-ending peace, but Russia might very well build anyway after a violent revolution.
Funny, I just re-read Gould's "Wonderful Life" and he makes the argument that it is rather terrifying that it took half of the projected age of our earth to evolve consciousness (i.e. us).
Giving us a few billion years head start could maybe help us outrace the eventual nova-death of our planet, but who knows.
My point is that we are in a race, and the race is against the sun.
Now, add to that the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor. The half life of U-235 is quite a bit less than that of U-238, meaning that uranium ore in the past was naturally much more enriched. Enough so that as recently as 1.7b years ago, there was at least one fission reactor that formed naturally just from having the right rocks and water and such in the right places. Earlier than that, it would have been far more enriched still.
Any civilization that arose several billion years ago, would have done it on a world where making a nuclear reactor would be easy. No enrichment needed, you could do it with just natural uranium ore. You could have nuclear power discovered during or prior to an industrial revolution even.
Also, if you're able to get things going really far back, maybe you could get civilization up and running back when Mars still had oceans, or at least a much thicker atmosphere.
Could certainly make things interesting at least.
I phrased it as a negative you phrased it as a positive.
Dude we're not gonna beat the sun. Just accept it. When it goes, we go. Hell, even before it goes supernova it'll start changing it's temperature and that'll be enough to kill us.
Even if we could somehow travel to another solar system, the increasing entropy of the universe would doom us not too long afterwards.
The only winning move is not to...
go too far back in time so I'd lose the ability to use the time machine as many times as I wanted to until the space time continuum came crashing down.
All just an illusion anyways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_R6xCWcf_VU#t=39s
There's gonna be loads of time left in the universe after the sun goes out.
The sun's got another six billions years until it's a red giant and the universe has billions and billions and billions of years left in it after that. This wiki article I'm looking at say that it's 2 trillion years from being the end of our ability to detect galaxies beyond the supercluster and there's plenty of time after that.
Now that's a thought, at some point in the future a civilization will exist where they could never prove that the rest of the universe ever existed. Will Carl Sagan be their version of Hercules or Jesus?
Of course humankind will probably be extinct long before the sun starts heating up too much anyway.
and then, the dominion of the Octopoid will be unchallenged !
Frankly, with a time machine (and a hypothetical lack of butterflies), the only thing I'd consider doing is retrieving stuff that can be put to good use in the modern day. Better fossil records, maybe; a decent record of the event that killed the dinosaurs if possible, that sort of thing. Trying to fix the present by altering the past is generally a noble but extremely difficult goal; you'd have to have enough manpower to have a global effect, as well as ways of overriding the social paradigms of the civilisations you're trying to affect, which would probably include lethal force with which to defend yourself (with all the history we have of the past millennia, it's amazing people think our ancestors weren't incredibly xenophobic superstitious buttheads).
There was a computer game where you did this. You flew around in your time-travelling space ship, collected offering from various races and then went back in time to give them their own offerings and help them advance. It was set to a background of space battles for some reason.
Myself, I'd go back and bury confusing fossil records and copies of the Book of Mormon in odd places.
I've heard theories that if the Nazi's hadn't risen up America was very likely to become a fascist government.
Based on what?