Sunday, May 11, 2008
« Quote of the day--Lazarus Long | Main | Quote of the day--Thomas F. Dailey »

What would you do if you were given a time machine and a scoped rifle? Or would you want a scoped rifle to go with the time machine?

In the science fiction short story The Return of William Proxmire Proxmire doesn't want a scoped rifle--he wants a syringe full of antibiotics and he is "gunning" for Robert Heinlein. I loved this story. It articulates the fantasy of changing history via what Niven claims, perhaps rightly so, the common fantasy assassinating some horrendously evil person before they had a chance to do their evil. It put the twist on that fantasy that perhaps you could change history in remarkably good ways by doing some small act of good as well.

Barb and I have been watching The Nazis: A Warning from History. This presentation casts doubts on my fantasy of going back in time to assassinate Hitler. And it makes me a little more sympathetic to all the people I read about in Plotting Hitler's Death: The Story of German Resistance who had the opportunity but then failed to follow through because they didn't have all their plans in order about what to do after Hitler was dead. Some of them spent months debating what type of government (a parliament? A representative democracy? Or perhaps even install a King?) would they put in place after they had successfully killed Hitler. My frustration with them boiled down to "just kill the SOB and worry about the details later". But perhaps it wasn't so simple.

In the The Nazis they claim Hitler wasn't the dictator with a finely detailed plan we, or at least I, thought he was. Hitler had the broad goals of expanding the geographical territory and economic power of the "Germanic people". Yes, many people blamed the Jews for the poor outcome of Germany in WWI and Jews as a scapegoat were a useful tool to motivate people. But in many ways Hitler was very lazy and let his subordinates do pretty much whatever they wanted. He had obtained great power through his gift of rhetoric and ambitious people sought access to that power. These power seekers put great effort into trying to please him. Hitler didn't command them to commit all the great atrocities. They devised and implemented them in an attempt to please him and obtain still more wealth and power. If they furthered the broad goals of more territory and power for the Germans then Hitler did not interfere and they obtained the resources to further their work.

The above is background for the questions posed in the first two sentences of this post. If you could change history with a little nudge (what is one bullet into the brain of Gefreiter Hitler during the middle of WWI in the big scheme of things?) what would that nudge be?

Books such as Because They Hate, Hatred's Kingdom, Preachers of Hate, The Truth About Muhammad, and Infidel put Muhammad on my list. And because Barb and I just finished Genghis Khan he would get some "special attention". Both of these butchers could perhaps be better "nudged" with something other than "a scoped rifle".

The introduction of the principles of scientific inquire and a little schooling might have changed Muhammad into something much more compatible with civilized society. And certainly the Arabs had the talent and even a strong tendency for pursuing science instead of superstition. Could the education of the illiterate Mohammad have made the desired difference?

And what of Genghis Khan? Was the poisoning of his father by a neighboring tribe, the resulting dissolution his tribe and him being hunted and marked for death as the eldest son of the dead tribal leader the motivation for his climb to power? Could his father have been warned about the poison and the results in the following decades been much different?

But the books Free to Choose, Freedomnomics, The Big Three in Economics and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal have influenced me the most. I am inclined to go with the "scoped rifle" approach for dealing with Rousseau, Marx, Hegel, and Engels. These were brilliant men of ideas and persuasion that influenced and enabled Hitler, Stalin, and scores of other brutal dictators to kill hundreds of millions of people and enslave billions more right up through the present day. Perhaps this graphic from Kevin will make it more clear as to why these people are at the top of my list:

Joe Huffman  Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:02:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [9]  |  Trackback
Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:42:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Unfortunately, the causality paradox is a cruel bitch.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:15:45 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Yeah. I know. It's a pleasant fantasy and sometimes makes for some good science fiction stories though.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:31:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Causality isn't such a big problem, it is just a low energy state.
Joe
Monday, May 12, 2008 2:09:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I was thinking the same as Proxmire, but with Alexander rather than Heinlein.
Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35:27 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
As a purely entertaining read, there was a sci-fi short story done some years ago, called "The Murderer". Too bad I can't recall who wrote it. The whole story was of an interview between a LEO and an accused man. The man was accused of killing a bunch of people in widely spaced parts of the world over many years. "You have to get them early, before they've built up their protection, while their guard's still down." he said, and, "All in all I think I've accomplished quite a lot."

The man is treated, predictably, as insane. You find out only at the vary end that the accused was a time traveler who had done exactly as you describe.
Lyle
Monday, May 12, 2008 3:48:32 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Since I haven't been visited by a time traveler from the future, we can assume that time travel will never be invented. So said Stephen Hawking.

Or to paraphrase Douglas Adams, "Time travel was, by its very nature, invented simultaneously at all periods in history."

Or can we assume that, since things are/were pretty mucked up, time travel, if it exists, must be fairly new? No. That makes no sense at all (see Adams' quote above). Maybe we could assume that if time travel does exist, the few persons who can do it are either not using it or they are total assholes. Either that or there is some "manifest destiny" that doesn't allow for great big changes in human society caused by individual influences-- that our fate is more tied to our inherant behavior, rather than to individual players or deeds. That say, W.W.II would have happened with or without Hitler and Tojo. Kill those two, and just as likely the Russians would have been the instigators.
Lyle
Monday, May 12, 2008 5:09:21 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I think the short story you're talking about would be Lawrence Watt-Evans's The Murderer. I like the (vastly historically incorrect, but still entertaining) part of the twist ending where the titular time-travelling assassin's twelve murders make him the single most violent individual in history.

I dunno who or what I'd want to kill. Marx would be the easiest, and the one with the greatest negative results on his record... but we're talking tens if not hundreds of millions of dead people. Even without the obvious causality problems, there's no telling what that change could result in. Hitler's rule is probably the only thing that made eugenics unacceptable as part of modern culture -- up until the middle of WWII, it was popular among politically normal people. Saving millions of lives if nice, but it might not be worth it if it results in taking out Hawking and even more people, just in bite-sized chunks.

Say you do take out Marx, and that stops or just partially defangs Mao and Stalin to simple nasty fascists rather than mass-murdering and mass-starving socialists, what I'd consider a ridiculously optimistic result. Given every other country and the tendency to gallop toward socialism, and how only staunch anti-communists -- who have to constantly bring up and were inspired by examples like Mao and Stalin -- are effective in our timeline, and the vast negative and addictive results of socialistic influences, I honestly can't say we'd be better off.

It's sad when a hundred million people might look like a reasonabl price to pay, but if that's what it takes to keep our reality from being turned into an even more pessimistic version of Huxley's Brave New World.
gattsuru
Monday, May 12, 2008 10:05:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I guess my point was along the lines of; Did despot A create the problem of mass blind following, or did the problem of mass blind following create despot A? Did the mushroom create the mold, or did the mold simply give rise to the mushroom?

Kill one and ten others will be there to play the same role as fill-ins.

It's pure speculation of course, and you might say it's a bit fatalist. I don't embrace it-- I just wonder.
Lyle Keeney
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:31:07 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I'd prefer other ways if possible. A decent paying job that kept him busy would have shut Marx up- he was a gifted writer and reporter. Put him on as a war correspondent or PR man for Carnegie.

Rousseau still gets bullets though, the risk is too high. THE worst, with his noble savage rap.
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (Some html is allowed: a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.  

Live Comment Preview