Let's look at a hypothetical scenario for your consideration.

[Guest Peeves]

I posed this elsewhere out of context perhaps. I think it's a valid moral question considering history and the consequences.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario for your consideration.

You have been given the ability to go back in time and assassinate a young Adolf Hitler, a young Stalin, Mao, Vlad the impaler, Jack the ripper, Clifford Olsen, Pol Pot, (in all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership, or any of the serial killers like Robert William "Willie" Pickton, serial killer and aberrant pig farmer.

Would you (any of you)take that opportunity knowing that allowing their lives to continue would be cause executions, murders, tortures and genocide to millions?

My personal choice would likely be to eradicate their very existence, but I'd need help I think.

I think all showed they had no right to live among us.

Is it a death penalty, is it justified though at that early time perhaps no crime has yet been committed?

Would you chose an alternative such as framing them for a crime?

Would you have an alternative that would have prevented the results of their existence?

We go about executing the likes of Saddam, Osama, etc. for crimes is there any difference in preemptive strikes on mass murderers in our past?

[jacee]

We can never know in advance what crimes someone would commit, so what's the point in speculating.

[Boges]

I posed this elsewhere out of context perhaps. I think it's a valid moral question considering history and the consequences.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario for your consideration.

You have been given the ability to go back in time and assassinate a young Adolf Hitler, a young Stalin, Mao, Vlad the impaler, Jack the ripper, Clifford Olsen, Pol Pot, (in all, an estimated 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people died under his leadership, or any of the serial killers like Robert William "Willie" Pickton, serial killer and aberrant pig farmer.

Would you (any of you)take that opportunity knowing that allowing their lives to continue would be cause executions, murders, tortures and genocide to millions?

My personal choice would likely be to eradicate their very existence, but I'd need help I think.

I think all showed they had no right to live among us.

Is it a death penalty, is it justified though at that early time perhaps no crime has yet been committed?

Would you chose an alternative such as framing them for a crime?

Would you have an alternative that would have prevented the results of their existence?

We go about executing the likes of Saddam, Osama, etc. for crimes is there any difference in preemptive strikes on mass murderers in our past?

Or you could somehow make sure Franz Ferdinand didn't get assassinated which would mean WW1 wouldn't have happened and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been written and Adolph Hitler would have no fuel for the rage that caused WW2.

[Guest Peeves]

Or you could somehow make sure Franz Ferdinand didn't get assassinated which would mean WW1 wouldn't have happened and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been written and Adolph Hitler would have no fuel for the rage that caused WW2.

Yes indeed an alternative that would be reasonable.

[Guest Peeves]

We can never know in advance what crimes someone would commit, so what's the point in speculating.

But I gave you that 'do over' moment knowing what crimes were to come. It's just an exercise.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a strange fantasy.

Why not just go back a little earlier in time and prevent the future parents from meeting, or interrupt them at the moment before conception ?

If I had time travel abilities, I would probably just enjoy myself with them.

[dre]

I wouldnt do anything at all.

All the ugly stuff that humans have done to each other since the dawn of our existance is part of our history and our development. Life would be completely and unpredictably different today if you just went back and arbitrarily removed the parts of history and the players you dont like.

WW2 was an integral and important defining factor in our civilisation as it is today. Without it there would be a different global monetary framework, no geneva convention, no jewish state, no multilateral institutions, no commitment by nations to stop overtly targeting civilians in war, and about a million other things would be diferent in ways impossible to predict. And not all for the better/worse.

Humans are an agressive and brutal species, and from an evolutionary standpoint we are but a blink of an eye beyond being wild animals. If you went back and changed any of the events and periods of history that have shaped our evolution and development you would really just be rolling the dice, and it would probably make stuff worse not better.

[guyser]

Id bump off Lucy ....or Adam and Eve if thats your boat to float.

The world is mine...mine...MINE Dammit!

Id miss the National Geographic Channel though.

Edited January 24, 2012 by guyser

[Bonam]

I wouldnt do anything at all.

All the ugly stuff that humans have done to each other since the dawn of our existance is part of our history and our development. Life would be completely and unpredictably different today if you just went back and arbitrarily removed the parts of history and the players you dont like.

WW2 was an integral and important defining factor in our civilisation as it is today. Without it there would be a different global monetary framework, no geneva convention, no jewish state, no multilateral institutions, no commitment by nations to stop overtly targeting civilians in war, and about a million other things would be diferent in ways impossible to predict. And not all for the better/worse.

Humans are an agressive and brutal species, and from an evolutionary standpoint we are but a blink of an eye beyond being wild animals. If you went back and changed any of the events and periods of history that have shaped our evolution and development you would really just be rolling the dice, and it would probably make stuff worse not better.

Agreed. The impact of making changes to human history cannot be known in advance. While the atrocities committed by individuals like Hitler are horrific, you cannot know with certainty that history would have gone any better if he had been killed early in his life. It is far too complex a system to model. Even relatively minor changes can have significant and unforeseen consequences. Ever see the movie The Butterfly Effect?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Manny]

In the case of such people as Hitler, Stalin etc. one man is not the enabler of the whole killing machine. It might not matter to kill the one person, the outcome may still be more or less the same. that's like saying, Hitler was inevitable. And there may be some truth to this... preventing the assassination of Ferdinand would probably not have prevented WWI. It was inevitable, many knew what was coming, and the assassination was simply the switch that got tripped. And thereafter, WWII was also inevitable. As there was a famous quote by Stalin after WWI, something like "the biggest bang has not yet been heard".

[dre]

Agreed. The impact of making changes to human history cannot be known in advance. While the atrocities committed by individuals like Hitler are horrific, you cannot know with certainty that history would have gone any better if he had been killed early in his life. It is far too complex a system to model. Even relatively minor changes can have significant and unforeseen consequences. Ever see the movie The Butterfly Effect?

I dont think Iv seen it but I just read a few quick snippets and it sounds worth watching. Iv seen Back To The Future though!

[Bonam]

I dont think Iv seen it but I just read a few quick snippets and it sounds worth watching. Iv seen Back To The Future though!

It was quite good in my opinion. If you do watch it, watch the director's cut.

[Guest Peeves]

It's a strange fantasy.

Why not just go back a little earlier in time and prevent the future parents from meeting, or interrupt them at the moment before conception ?

If I had time travel abilities, I would probably just enjoy myself with them.

I considered your scenario as well.

[Guest Peeves]

Agreed. The impact of making changes to human history cannot be known in advance. While the atrocities committed by individuals like Hitler are horrific, you cannot know with certainty that history would have gone any better if he had been killed early in his life. It is far too complex a system to model. Even relatively minor changes can have significant and unforeseen consequences. Ever see the movie The Butterfly Effect?

For me I would take the chance that it would be a better future and by whatever means deny their right to existence.

[GostHacked]

Or you could somehow make sure Franz Ferdinand didn't get assassinated which would mean WW1 wouldn't have happened and the Treaty of Versailles would never have been written and Adolph Hitler would have no fuel for the rage that caused WW2.

You think WW1 started with an assassination?? There are many other reasons that contributed to the start of WW1.

[DogOnPorch]

You think WW1 started with an assassination?? There are many other reasons that contributed to the start of WW1.

Like...?

[GostHacked]

Like...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/index.htm

Would the assassination of Israel's or Iran's president start another world war without the current geo-political climate in the Middle East?

[DogOnPorch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/index.htm

Would the assassination of Israel's or Iran's president start another world war without the current geo-political climate in the Middle East?

So you aren't going to imform me of these other starting points for WW1? Why?

[GostHacked]

So you aren't going to imform me of these other starting points for WW1? Why?

I provided links for you.

[DogOnPorch]

I provided links for you.

Sorry GH...that's not good enough. I know of plenty of causes for WW1 but only one starting point. the same one in all the history books. You simply do not have another starting point for WW1 and now seek to save face.

[Guest Manny]

It's a bizarre question. What if you found out you were wrong, they didn't cause those things. Shoud you then go further back in time, and kill yourself before you killed them?

But in no case does the answer justify pre-emptive assassination of suspects without trial. People must face justice in a court of law, not be "rubbed out" without facing a legally recognized judge and jury. Else we condone lawless executions, and eventually people get "disappeared" when they present some sort of perceived threat to those who hold supreme executive power.

[DogOnPorch]

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Sorry...Python moment.

[GostHacked]

Sorry GH...that's not good enough. I know of plenty of causes for WW1 but only one starting point. the same one in all the history books. You simply do not have another starting point for WW1 and now seek to save face.

Gee, why did I somehow know that it would not be good enough for you?

[DogOnPorch]

Gee, why did I somehow know that it would not be good enough for you?

No it isn't because there's only one starting point to WW1. That you want there to be more is fine...but give an example.

[GostHacked]

No it isn't because there's only one starting point to WW1. That you want there to be more is fine...but give an example.

The starting point was not with the Duke. The starting point were the events leading up top the Duke. There are two links with plenty of examples.

Let's go round and round some more shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I

From the FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THE ARTICLE YOU DON"T WANT TO READ.

The causes of World War I, which began in central Europe in July 1914, included many intertwined factors, such as the conflicts and hostility of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the conflict as well. However, the immediate origins of the war lay in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914, casus belli for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife by Gavrilo Princip, an irredentist Serb.[1]

The crisis came after a long and difficult series of diplomatic clashes between the Great Powers (Italy, France, Germany, the British Empire, Austria-Hungarian Empire and Russia) over European and colonial issues in the decade before 1914 that had left tensions high. In turn these diplomatic clashes can be traced to changes in the balance of power in Europe since 1867.[2] The more immediate cause for the war was tensions over territory in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary competed with Serbia and Russia for territory and influence in the region and they pulled the rest of the Great Powers into the conflict through their various alliances and treaties.

The assassination of the Duke could be argued to be the final straw, tensions were already high between all these countries, and just needed the spark. The spark could have been anything. But without learning what leads to the spark, the sole notion of the Duke being assassinated for the reason the war started is not correct.

I know you won't agree, and I really don't care. Carry on.