The danger of science denial

The historian in me is torn between wanting to go back and see for myself whether things that are 'known' really happened that way ... and wanting to go forward to see if we really make it as a species or just squander our future.
 
On a personal note, I think I would go back. There is always something in our life that we feel we could have done a better job at, if given a second chance.
To me the future is a bit scary, with little chance of our changing anything, and just being an observer of the results of past transgressions, whether ours or someone else's.
 
I love genealogy and family stories.
I never really knew my Grandparents, so I would love to go back buy them a pint, sit in a pub and chat with them, and other more distant ancestors. The war stories, the hardships, the successes, it would be so fascinating.
 
I think that I would prefer visiting the past. What if you went in the future say 5 years and found out that you were not there? Would your not thereness then prevent you from going back?
 
Go back about 30 years, lay out a bunch of info for 20 yr. old me. Make a profit.

Why else would I bother?


I used to think that way too, but I wonder if the "Back to the Future" movies didn't actually show the potential problems with changing past events as regards the "new" future they cause.

Just something to think about.

I guess I'll just stick to the present and be surprised by the future.
 
I can see why more people would choose the past, there is so much more known data and known options to choose from. I get that the speaker is a journalist (don't know what -- if any -- scientific background he has), but to me it is very glaring that such a staunch supporter of the scientific method and scientific development chooses to ignore basic probability.

It makes him look like the very sort of idealogue that he decries in his speech.
 
Back
Top