Exhibit (some very large number)
Description: Donald acting very Presidential (sarcasm)
As Donald has a former Mrs Universe come out on the stage to berate her a man wolf whistles at her. No one does anything. Nobody says this is wrong. No one reports Donald to HR.
There are plenty of time travel stories out there. Some of them involve people traveling back in to time to kill Hitler and prevent World War II.
Isaac Asimov invented two different models of time travel during his science fiction career.
- Even slight changes to the timeline can create big changes for the future (earlier or butterfly effect model)
- Changes require massive efforts and little changes will easily be erased (later or more complex model)
In the grandfather paradox – what happens if you go back in time and kill your grandfather or grandmother or heck both before they have your parent (or even both sets of grandparents)?
In model 1 – you would cease to exist and not exist to come back in time to kill your grandparents. Nature, what we can observe of it, doesn’t allow for things like this in everyday activity.
In model 2 – someone else will be either or all of your grandparents. You will grow up and travel back in time and kill them(this new set of grandparents). This cycle can continue to happen over and over again – and there will never be a paradox. If you really wanted to not ever have existed – you would have to kill off all of humanity – all of your possible grandparents – to ensure that you were not born to travel back through time to kill your grandparents.
Now to kill Hitler. You know what would be funny? Not ha ha funny, just funny, hmmm.
Nostradamus made predictions about the future. Many people point to a section on the river Hister and think this was actually a prognostication about Hitler. But what if – there was a Hister? What if we do learn to travel back in time – and we murdered Hister for killing millions of people. Then we returned to the future to find everything unchanged except that instead of Hister being the person responsible for killing all those people – it was Hitler.
Not definitive proof of time travel, but interesting. Not ha ha funny, just funny, hmmm.
Rarely, though are human events just about one person. Hitler had a huge following of people that were willing to do whatever it took to make Germany the strongest country in the world. You can write all the orders in the world to build gas chambers, remove people from their homes to concentration camps, and kill hundreds of people at a time, but if no one believes that you are doing the right thing – nothing will happen.
I have seen it dozens of times in the work place. Stakeholders are ordered to do something by upper management and it just doesn’t happen. People always talk about projects that don’t happen because there is no executive sponsorship. Turns out if your employee stakeholders don’t believe in a project – it won’t happen either.
If you look at leadership in terms of a pyramid there are many many more blocks on the bottom and only one at the top. Should the block on the top be removed the vacuum will suck in one of the other higher up blocks in the place of the one removed. Remove Hister you get Hitler. Remove the top piece you get the next one in place – and so on.
There are; however, practical applications to the second model in today’s politics. In this video, (linked at the beginning of this article as well) you see Donald Trump embarrass and sexually harass a woman. You see her come out to the audience and men are wolf whistling. You see an entire crowd laughing and jeering at the appropriate parts of the speech so well it might be scripted. Only it isn’t scripted.
And killing Donald Trump is immoral – and would not gain the desired results – say ridding the US politics of the ideals espoused by Donald Trump. He would die. Someone (internal or external to his organization, GOP, or elsewhere) would take his place. It could even make the problem worse – say if one of Donald’s children are old enough to run for President – now they would get a huge sympathy vote for having lost their father.
Assassination, oddly enough, aimed at preventing larger altercations may even make those altercations more likely. The death of JFK or Martin Luther King Jr. did not stop the movements and progress that they were making. It may have changed those things, but how could we say that they were changed in a way that would not have been the case if they had still lived?