If you could go back in time to save a persons life

[Deleted]

Would you do it? The reason why the answer isn't obviously yes, is because you're changing how things would unfold in the future and other people would die instead. Maybe your choice would make so another person near you would die? It's complicated and hard to explain, but hopefully you understand my argument.

[Deleted]

I'd go safe my friends girlfriend. That way she'd be alive, and he too...
What would change? wedding pictures instead of funeral pictures on facebook.

IT is deep, i know. But there are many things we can't foresee...what happens, happens.

[Belize]

I feel as if this is a bit of an impossibility. Of course I would try, but like that movie with the time traveling guy (it's old and I can't remember the name to save my life) where he keeps trying to save his wife, but she keeps dying every time, even if he saved her form the first event, I think that it would be impossible to save someone.

[Deleted]

No, just thinking about the paradox gives me a headache.

[Belize]

No, just thinking about the paradox gives me a headache.

Oh come on! It's a nice little brain workout!

[Deleted]

Oh come on! It's a nice little brain workout!

Oh no! Did this once, I couldnt sleep all night trying to think of a solution to make it work.

[schwarzkopf]

Depends on how long ago it was.... if it was 20 years ago, then no. If it was last night and someone I really cared for - then definitely yes.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:37 AM ----------

Oh no! Did this once, I couldnt sleep all night trying to think of a solution to make it work.

Anyone with experience with analog computing has no problems contemplating resolution of feedback systems such as this....

[Arkenaw]

If I could go back in time, saving someone's life would be the last of my priorities.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

If it was my choice that had killed someone I might, even then it depends on a great many other things. It depends almost entirely on the situation, since there is no scenario given with the choice I will simply say no.

[Kraenen]

I think I would save michal jordan's life. That guy was just such a great singer

[Deleted]

I feel as if this is a bit of an impossibility. Of course I would try, but like that movie with the time traveling guy (it's old and I can't remember the name to save my life) where he keeps trying to save his wife, but she keeps dying every time, even if he saved her form the first event, I think that it would be impossible to save someone.

I see what you mean. What if he or she dies a couple of years later from something totally unrelated to the first thing?

It could go either good or bad, but I'm not sure if I would want to risk it. Maybe more bad things turn out than good because of your saving?

[Deleted]

voted no.
since there is no way to predict the outcome of your actions, I would not go back and change things, even if I could.
you have no way to know who would die instead, or what things would change. Not everything could change for the better.

What would happen if it was you to die instead, how would you be able to go back and change things ?

[Deleted]

I'm lucky to not have anyone who needs saving in my own life, and saving someone famous/important would change too much. So no.

[Deleted]

Right now? No. Probably in the future.

[Aphrel]

i whould go back to 1914 and save Archduke Franz Ferdinand from his assasination in Sarajevo.

It probobly whouldnt prevent ww1 from happening anyway but its worth a shot.
and if it acutally whould succed prevent ww1 chances are good that ww2 whouldnt happen either (no great depression in germany will reduce the chances of a party of poilitical extremists gaining power).

[Fugus]

I couldn't go back too far in time or I would risk changing too much. I would only go back far enough to save the life of Raymond Lemme in 2003.

Then he (A Florida state investigator) could have come forward with the evidence he claimed he had about the Bush vote fixing before he was killed and ruled a suicide (Can't really kill yourself by slitting your arms after your neck is already bashed in). The we wouldn't have had to suffer under bush jr hopefully.

Then as a way to celebrate, I would have bought me a winning lottery ticket worth over 350 million dollars.

[Ettan]

Yes I would go back to 445, save Bleda by killing his brother.
In return he would have to lead his horde east and not west.

My choice would hopefully make it so no nations would exist, all would be Rome.

[Stir]

I'd want to vote 'no,' because that would be honourable and all, but...
There's this one person I would love to save. Despite everything. Despite the fact that my entire life would be different, despite the fact that I wouldn't have some of the things I do now.
As for paradox: Of course there's a parodox. You go back in time to save someone. The moment you succeed, there has never been a reason to go back in time to save someone, so you're not going back in time to save someone, so that someone dies because you're not going back in time to save them, so, having the chance to go back in time to save that someone, you go back in time to save them, which brings us at the beginning of this sentence. What you'd get is an event chain loop that can never be broken.

[Laize]

Would you do it? The reason why the answer isn't obviously yes, is because you're changing how things would unfold in the future and other people would die instead. Maybe your choice would make so another person near you would die? It's complicated and hard to explain, but hopefully you understand my argument.

I would save Hitler's life.

So we could put him on trial and kill him properly.

[Belize]

I would save Hitler's life.

So we could put him on trial and kill him properly.

So wait, you would stop him from committing suicide is what I understand?