"Counterfactual history" is a contradiction in terms. Its logical and metaphysical foundations are also suspect, at best.
That said--I enjoy counterfactual speculation, which can be interesting and even illuminating. It's just not 'history.'
What event would change history the most?
- Thread starter edisraf
- Start date
"Counterfactual history" is a contradiction in terms. Its logical and metaphysical foundations are also suspect, at best.
That said--I enjoy counterfactual speculation, which can be interesting and even illuminating. It's just not 'history.'
Nope. Adherents would rationalize or ignore the information. Inconvenient facts are not really that big a problem in matters of faith.
A real life "fountain of youth", or at least something that slows the aging process to a crawl. I don't think this is all that far-fetched with current medical technology.
Release of holodeck type technology. Release of human-realistic robots. I'm not sure I'm likely to see either of those in my lifetime.
Release of holodeck type technology. Release of human-realistic robots. I'm not sure I'm likely to see either of those in my lifetime.
You're right CN, and I worded it inexactly. May haps it would be better said, What event, if it occurred today would have the greatest effect on human history or, in the case of the past, would have had the greatest effect on human history.
raf
And, of course, a famous actor of the past found out you cannot change something that doesn't exist and he never got "change for a herne." Anyone know who it was?
The invention of the time machine.
Well, at least until the massive overpopulation and related problems started to kick in.
Very true - I neglected to factor in that particular form of mental illness.
The OP is asking a strange question.
What would change history more than a cosmic event that obliterated the earth?
eg, Earth lies directly in the path of a hypervelocity star.
Does there need to be at least one survivor of this cosmic event? To look out of his spaceship window to where the earth once stood, to open his notebook and to write down the last chapter of human history: "I don't know if anyone will ever read this, but I feel a need to rant. Yesterday wasn't the greatest of days..."
What would change history more than a cosmic event that obliterated the earth?
eg, Earth lies directly in the path of a hypervelocity star.
Does there need to be at least one survivor of this cosmic event? To look out of his spaceship window to where the earth once stood, to open his notebook and to write down the last chapter of human history: "I don't know if anyone will ever read this, but I feel a need to rant. Yesterday wasn't the greatest of days..."
LOL
The OP is talking about a "phase change", an event that alters the current flow of human society onto a new path.
I've read a lot of stuff along these lines and one that hasn't been mentioned yet is gender death. If one of the two genders died out because of some disease or something you would have a "phase change".
To add a wrinkle to this idea: how about first contact with aliens and their religion matched one of ours? For example, say they were Christian, except their Christ lived and died on another planet (Earth) and they were out looking for that planet.
Aside from Yeshua or aliens, I think that the event that would most notably represent a phase change or paradigm shift in our history would be the invention of the nanotech assembler. Certainly it ought to usher in a new industrial revolution and eventually change every aspect of our lives, from medicine to space exploration, taking in metaphysics along the way.
Baseball fanatic that I am, I often wonder how things would be different today if the 1994 strike had never occurred...
- Would Tony Gwynn have hit over .400?
- Would the Expos have won the World Series?
- Would Matt Williams have broken Roger Maris' single season HR record?
- Would Don Mattingly have reached the postseason? (Probably. The 1994 World Series would most likely have been Expos vs. Yankees.)
- Would the Expos still *be* the Expos today? The strike, along with Montreal not building them a new stadium, was what doomed the team, I think. If the Expos had made the Series, they'd have gotten that stadium. But then there'd be no Washington Nationals...
- Would Tony Gwynn have hit over .400?
- Would the Expos have won the World Series?
- Would Matt Williams have broken Roger Maris' single season HR record?
- Would Don Mattingly have reached the postseason? (Probably. The 1994 World Series would most likely have been Expos vs. Yankees.)
- Would the Expos still *be* the Expos today? The strike, along with Montreal not building them a new stadium, was what doomed the team, I think. If the Expos had made the Series, they'd have gotten that stadium. But then there'd be no Washington Nationals...
... I have to awkwardly shoehorn baseball references into everything, even when it's wildly unrelated to the topic!
Q: Hey did you hear that bin Laden died?
A: Not as bad as the Mets!
Wakka Wakka Wakka. Or should I say Walka, Walka, Walka, because the Mets pitching sucks!? Ha, I kill myself.
^ The topic was changing history. I talked about changing a part of history. 
^ Looks like you'll have to get in line, then. 
This raises lots of questions and doesn't really answer mine. You can't 'change' something that doesn't exist by virtue of that fact that it doesn't exist.
Now I would also add - why would you waste your time imagining things that cannot happen (by virtue of their non existance) and maybe even more to the point, nobody else would believe that you are changing something that doesn't exist with your imagination (or maybe with my mind Sheen style) and I'm pretty sure you're not silly enough to believe it either, so who exactly are you trying to fool here?
^ That's the point of using one's imagination. To consider things that don't exist.
Yes
It doesn't let you change something unreal though.
It doesn't let you change something unreal though.
Nothing unreal exists.
Similar threads
