if you would travel through time in only one direction

if you could travel through time in only one direction, would you go back knowing what you know now and save the world or would you progressively go forward and be that super trendy 1000 year old useless hipster with the stupid mustache?

 

Do you believe that by going back you could change the world, considering that every action has an opposite reaction, if Newton is to be believed?

 

there is only one impossible way to find out

 

I doubt I could save anybody or anything by going into the past. I could also look forward to dying of some stupid ailment that modern medicine might have been able to treat as a bonus, and going back very far I'd also be faced with a bad combination of language and cultural barriers and an ignorant, superstitious population at best, and an outright distrusting and hostile one at worst.

Better to go into the future of the Idiocracy and be the smartest guy on Earth among our devolved descendants.

 

I'd go 20 years into the past, so I could be an incredible smart-ass and able say "I told you so" to people on a regular basis.
I would not have a stupid mustache, though. No way.

 

I would go back to the 1930s, for although the depression was upon us, most of the people of that era were more decent human beings, except of course for racism. My youth was spent on the tail end of that era, and although people were so much poorer, the happiness level was so much higher. The older people around me found happiness in family and friends, and didn't need constant stimulation or new widgets in order to be happy. I was so lucky to have experienced that America, even if I had to go outside to use the "johnny house" a small building built over a hole in the ground with sears and roebucks catalogs or newspapers as toilet tissue, and if you wanted a drink you either pumped a handle to get it from the ground, or you went inside to get a drink from a bucket with a communal dipper.

We grew all of our own food, except for flour, coffee and sugar. And the work it took to store up food for the winter kept idle hand busy so as to keep folks out of excess mischief. Going to church on sunday was when people got to put on their sunday clothes and socialize with others in a positive fashion, and people just cared more for others back then. There was little welfare, except for commodities if you lived in a town, and people actually helped one another survive back then. You knew that if the neighbor borrowed a cup of sugar, they would pay you back, and their word was as good as gold. Yeah, I would travel back in time.

 

I am surprised why still nobody wrote that he would like to return to the past to find Barack Hussein Obama I and to dissuade him marry the pornoactress to save the world from the "Dark Lord"? Oops, am I the first one?

 

I am already traveling through time in one direction, forward, I just do it slowly so I can enjoy the trip.

 

So people were indecent at their core, but since it didn't effect you directly, they were the good ole days.

 

Tough call. On one hand, traveling forward I might reach a time when death and disease were rendered almost obsolete through medical advances. On the other, I might wind up in an irradiated wasteland. Traveling backward, at least I would have a better idea of the situation I would encounter. And although the people would be primitive, that would allow me to become Isaac Newton with just a basic high school education (I could blow their minds with "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"). So traveling backwards seems the better bet. Then again, traveling forward is actually possible, just by accelerating up to near light speed (making the engineering of that "time machine" a fairly simple matter), while traveling backward is impossible.

 

I'd give a lot to have killed certain people in our past. If I could just keep on going backwards in time and dealiing with them, I'd have a ball for a long time.

 

Good thinking))

 

Since I am so rebellious i choose to go forward in time just the same as i always have unlike our barbaric government.

 

Three hundred years in the future sounds pretty tempting!



http://www.near-death.com/storm.html#a04

 

I would go back a thousand years or so and leave little messages all over the place, like "mak2 was here." And maybe drop a hint about who won the first and 35th Superbowls and stuff like that. Come on, that would just be fun.

 

Good point!

And some of the possible negative consequences for what we are convinced would be a good idea could surprise us?!

http://www.politicalforum.com/humor...2000-election-but-negates-global-dimming.html
In alternate time line Mr. Gore wins the 2000 election but negates Global Dimming....
I personally loved the film "An Inconvenient Truth." I have watched it four or five times at least. It played a huge role in my deciding to join a political party that takes climate change very seriously.

Largely due to his film I actually put in two submissions for The Virgin Earth Challenge.

I do have one criticism for his film though..... the diplomacy quotient was extremely low and America is more divided than ever partly because of the flavor of his film.

….Could a win by Mr. Al Gore in 2000 have led to America being 15% submerged under the oceans by January 1, 2013?

Time does look like a menorah....... or tree with branches and roots... … and is not confined to being a straight line...…

In theory....... Mr. Gore's policy could have ended up greatly decreasing the Global Dimming Effect..... at the same time that it might do little to reduce a general Global Warming trend.... which could lead to rapid warming.....and of course increased cracking and sliding on the land based Greenland Ice Pack.... the world's glaciers and the outer regions of Antarctica......

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Bush may have deliberately allowed somewhat bad policy to continue...… because they probably had been told that the factors that increase Global Dimming..... do tend to mask Global Warming.... .which could mean within five decades we may know that that they may have had a basically good idea..... in comparison to worst possible alternative.....??????!!!

http://www.baproducts.com/chetmap.htm

Dr Chet Snow's Earth Change Map

 

If I could take the right sort of concealable, silenced auto rifle and pistol, and body armor, I could kill Saddam, Arafat, Pol Pot, Tojo Mao, Hitler, Stalin,the guy who invented birth control, etc, and you'd have 15 billion people now, not 7 billion. would you like that?

 

You still might kill the wrong guy. What if Hitler, or the guy that replaced him, wasnt crazy?

 

My grandmother, (the romantic and foolish one) spurned a DuPont for my poor but honest grandpere. I'd go back and kill my own grandfather so I'd have rich grandparents...oh...wait...

 

What a horrible thought. I prefer to live in the realm of possibilities that include seeing nature at its finest rather than deal with the horrors of mankind. For instance, I would have loved to live in California 10,000 years ago or be on that boat that first discovered Hawaii.

 

I think that doing in those punks would be a blast. Too bad I could never see if it worked.

 

What an interesting idea. You could wind up in a unbelievably hostile, unbearable environment no matter which way you decided to go.

Just imagine going back 30 years with all you know about the last 30 years. Now imagine all the things you depend on, on a daily basis you would not have access too.

 

My wife would be 20 again.

 

...and uninterested in the old you.

 

Damn buzzkill.