Backwards or forwards?

[tame_deuces]

Through some weird event (which we don't have to take into consideration what is) you are facing the choice of having to travel between 75 and 3000 years either backwards or forward in time to the destination of your desire on this planet.

Assume the danger of paradoxes, changing the present or other horrible events don't have to be taken into consideration. We'll assume you'll automatically gain any needed language skills.

Which direction do you choose, what number of years do you choose, where do you choose and what is the reasoning behind your choices?

[DanielDayLewis]

3000 years forward. I'd say only reason why not is if you think we will somehow destroy outselves by then which seems really unlikely.

Only reason I'd go 75 years backwards is to get rich but I think it would be boring knowing what was going to happen in the news and I wouldn't like not having modern transportation, medicine, technology, etc.. You could also probably be a pretty popular guy if u are a world war 2 buff.

[madnak]

3000 forward, you could have a shot at great power/fame if you went back, but your quality of life would still suck (and you probably wouldn't be able to secure antibiotics or anything). 75 is a tougher question - I'd go forward because I think technology will probably move along and I'd find that very interesting, though 75 years back would allow for power/wealth/fame.

[Ringo]

3000 forward, baby!

[tame_deuces]

I was pondering that if I went forward I'd be like a 'caveman', understanding nothing of the society I entered. If I went backwards at least I'd have rudimentary understanding of society around me and some usable skills.

ponder...

[ThreeMartini]

75 years ago. You may find youself all alone should you jump 3000 years forward.

[blufish]

Is the trip permanent or short term?

Never mind. I just saw where I can pick the timeframe.

I can't read...

[luckyme]

The bigotry and social injustice of any past time would be hard to deal with. Also I know something about it so it wouldn't be as interesting.

3000 years forward I'd either be the only human around or the only subspecies to show up among a cyborg society.

That leaves 75 in the future. A couple months should soak up enough to be useful to civilization back here.

luckyme

[Lestat]

I think you guys are all nuts. I'd travel back maybe 15 years tops and be one of the wealthiest guys on the planet by today. I wouldn't want to be "the" wealthiest.

I'd also try to save millions of lives if possible (although people would probably think I'm loony).

I think many of you are underestimating just how valuable it would be to go back even 2 years.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are all nuts. I'd travel back maybe 15 years tops and be one of the wealthiest guys on the planet by today. I wouldn't want to be "the" wealthiest.

I'd also try to save millions of lives if possible (although people would probably think I'm loony).

I think many of you are underestimating just how valuable it would be to go back even 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuts? Only if money was the lead driver. I was thinking more in terms of interesting and useful. Agree if money was the driver a short time would safe and easy.

greedy b.. , luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are all nuts. I'd travel back maybe 15 years tops and be one of the wealthiest guys on the planet by today. I wouldn't want to be "the" wealthiest.

I'd also try to save millions of lives if possible (although people would probably think I'm loony).

I think many of you are underestimating just how valuable it would be to go back even 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuts? Only if money was the lead driver. I was thinking more in terms of interesting and useful. Agree if money was the driver a short time would safe and easy.

greedy b.. , luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Money AND security.... I would think it very risky to just pop into existence 3000 years from now. I wouldn't be at all confident there'd even be a planet left.

Going too far back doesn't appeal to me either for reasons already stated. So I guess if you're a big risk taker, the future would be better. I just don't have alot of confidence in the future.

[KeysrSoze]

3000 forward. I suspect 75 years from now is not going to be pleasant at the start of the post-oil-based economy. 75 years ago, nah I needs my inter-pipes. 1000 BC sucked, goes without saying.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you guys are all nuts. I'd travel back maybe 15 years tops and be one of the wealthiest guys on the planet by today. I wouldn't want to be "the" wealthiest.

I'd also try to save millions of lives if possible (although people would probably think I'm loony).

I think many of you are underestimating just how valuable it would be to go back even 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuts? Only if money was the lead driver. I was thinking more in terms of interesting and useful. Agree if money was the driver a short time would safe and easy.

greedy b.. , luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Money AND security.... I would think it very risky to just pop into existence 3000 years from now. I wouldn't be at all confident there'd even be a planet left.

Going too far back doesn't appeal to me either for reasons already stated. So I guess if you're a big risk taker, the future would be better. I just don't have alot of confidence in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 3000 years in the future is definitely the high-variance play. Going a couple years into the past, you could pretty much predict exactly how the rest of your life was going to play out. You'd be rich and famous and dangerous, and there would be pretty big risks associated with that, but nothing compared to going 3000 years into the future. But think of the benefits! I think I could get more joy and fulfillment out of a week in 5007 than a lifetime in 1932.

I suppose I also assign a fairly high probability to there being human life on Earth in 3,000 years, and a slightly lower but still fairly high probability to it being more advanced that at present.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I suppose I also assign a fairly high probability to there being human life on Earth in 3,000 years, and a slightly lower but still fairly high probability to it being more advanced that at present.

</font>

You've got more confidence in humanity than I do vhawk. Not only would I bet mankind is extinct in 3000 years, I'd be willing lay odds on it.

Another problem, is you'd be a complete idiot in the year 5008. Not only that, but there's no telling what social settings you'd find, or how people would react to you. Just think of how someone from 3000 years in our past would fit into our current society? The poor guy would never make it. Yeah, the more I think about it, I definitely wouldn't go too far into the future. I think it would be very risky indeed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I suppose I also assign a fairly high probability to there being human life on Earth in 3,000 years, and a slightly lower but still fairly high probability to it being more advanced that at present.

</font>

You've got more confidence in humanity than I do vhawk. Not only would I bet mankind is extinct in 3000 years, I'd be willing lay odds on it.

Another problem, is you'd be a complete idiot in the year 5008. Not only that, but there's no telling what social settings you'd find, or how people would react to you. Just think of how someone from 3000 years in our past would fit into our current society? The poor guy would never make it. Yeah, the more I think about it, I definitely wouldn't go too far into the future. I think it would be very risky indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me being a complete idiot in 5007 is pretty much exactly the reason I'd be interested in going there. Thats why I do pretty much everything I do, make myself the smallest fish in the biggest pond and try to get bigger. I'd be bored stiff as the smartest man in 1000 BC, I'm certain of it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I suppose I also assign a fairly high probability to there being human life on Earth in 3,000 years, and a slightly lower but still fairly high probability to it being more advanced that at present.

</font>

You've got more confidence in humanity than I do vhawk. Not only would I bet mankind is extinct in 3000 years, I'd be willing lay odds on it.

Another problem, is you'd be a complete idiot in the year 5008. Not only that, but there's no telling what social settings you'd find, or how people would react to you. Just think of how someone from 3000 years in our past would fit into our current society? The poor guy would never make it. Yeah, the more I think about it, I definitely wouldn't go too far into the future. I think it would be very risky indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me being a complete idiot in 5007 is pretty much exactly the reason I'd be interested in going there. Thats why I do pretty much everything I do, make myself the smallest fish in the biggest pond and try to get bigger. I'd be bored stiff as the smartest man in 1000 BC, I'm certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I think it might be kinda fun. And I might be arguing with godboy right now about how unlikely it is that vhawk was really god.

[Borodog]

Would not go.

[Phil153]

Really tough choice. I'm torn between going forward 100 or so years (fairly safe, somewhat familiar) and the full 3000. I think curiosity would take me forward 3000 years. It's be frightening but I'd find knowing the future irresistible.

I'd go to a remote part of the US, just in case it wasn't safe, taking ample supplies. From there I could scope out civilization or its ruins (assuming the world isn't covered in microscopic cameras or grey ooze or radioactivity or life sensing technology by then).

[andyfox]

Backwards thirty years. Make a fortune.

[PLOlover]

only one post I think mentioned risk reward ratio (variance i thinkn it was put).

you have to consider that if you go forward far enough, you may be able to live practically forever. immortality or close to it.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be bored stiff as the smartest man in 1000 BC, I'm certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could warn the Trojans not to let that horse into the gates.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pussy.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be bored stiff as the smartest man in 1000 BC, I'm certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could warn the Trojans not to let that horse into the gates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and then watch duels or horse races or hunt foxes or some crap for the rest of my life. WOOT!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the reason I would not go.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the reason I would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got more confidence in humanity than I do vhawk. Not only would I bet mankind is extinct in 3000 years, I'd be willing lay odds on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take any odds! Hey, if I'm around to collect then I'll definitely win the bet.

I think it's highly probably that the minimum quality of life in 3000 years is better than the maximum quality of life today. The relative quality might be off, but I don't think I'm concerned with that the way many people are. Honestly though, my curiosity is the main reason. I can't wait to see what kinds of things we'll come up with next! Even if it is dystopian regimes...

[Mr_Moore]

5007 ftw yihaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've got more confidence in humanity than I do vhawk. Not only would I bet mankind is extinct in 3000 years, I'd be willing lay odds on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take any odds! Hey, if I'm around to collect then I'll definitely win the bet.

I think it's highly probably that the minimum quality of life in 3000 years is better than the maximum quality of life today. The relative quality might be off, but I don't think I'm concerned with that the way many people are. Honestly though, my curiosity is the main reason. I can't wait to see what kinds of things we'll come up with next! Even if it is dystopian regimes...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, totally agree. I'm willing to gamble it up.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you have to consider that if you go forward far enough, you may be able to live practically forever. immortality or close to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this justifies Boro's response. If you're a futurist, you believe the singularity (and this immortality) will come in only a few decades. In you go into the future, you may miss the singularity and be hopelessly behind. It's better to be here for the singularity and potentially be able to enhance yourself and keep up, maximizing your potential. Thus, if you expect a technological singularity to happen within your lifetime, the best response may indeed be to simply stay where you are.

[Thug Bubbles]

[ QUOTE ]
Backwards thirty years. Make a fortune.

[/ QUOTE ]

if that's the case, you can simply go back a few years and pump all your money into Google/Amazon/et al.

[Yobz]

You guys need to learn to read. Between 75 and 3000 years. If 30 years was an option, getting stinking rich in the recent past seems good, but going back to 1932 and being dead by the time the internet is in full swing won't even allow me to post in this thread: lame.

I would go the full 3000 into the future. Probably be a minor celeb or the only human. Worth the risk.

[housenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Backwards thirty years. Make a fortune.

[/ QUOTE ]

if that's the case, you can simply go back a few years and pump all your money into Google/Amazon/et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think there'd be many other oppurtunities to make a fortune as well. and i'd want to go somewhere more exciting than the 70's.

Nintendo Wii has a free piece of software you can download called Everybody Votes, and every 2 days a question is posed, and you have to answer it, and also predict what you think the majority of people will answer.

The other day it was?

If you had a time machine where would you go?
To the Future
To the Past

Future won 57.9% to 42.1%
You can break down the stats even more by region and such.

Venezuela had the largest proportion of people who chose future, whereas Panama, followed by Greece, had the largest for past, but it still looks about 52-48 on that one.


59.3% of males chose future
54.5% of females chose future

72.0% of people correctly predicted that the masses would choose future.

Just an interesting aside. I wish it told you how many people voted.

[tame_deuces]

Well, if the only people you ask is Nintendo Wii owners, the sample is probably pretty biased for people relatively up to date on the technology, so I'll venture a guess and say you'd most likely have a strong future bias.

[drzen]

Can I come back? Can I take my children with me?

The future is probably going to suck and the past mostly did suck. Some choice!

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I come back? Can I take my children with me?

The future is probably going to suck and the past mostly did suck. Some choice!

[/ QUOTE ]

The way I imagined it there was no coming back, and no bringing anyone along, though maybe I should have written that.

My purpose with the question was to 'force' people into choosing between history and a complete unknown based on where we think/guess humanity are headed. That's also why I chose the minimum 75 years limit, to get away from any 'comfort zone'. That people take a choice because they think it is going to 'suck less' or because they it is going to be great isn't really a concern.

[tame_deuces]

But it was very interesting that so many optioned to go forward while still stating they knew it was the 'uncertain choice'. Though maybe a sample gathered on an internet poker forum has some bias on gambling and technology? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I come back? Can I take my children with me?

The future is probably going to suck and the past mostly did suck. Some choice!

[/ QUOTE ]

The way I imagined it there was no coming back, and no bringing anyone along, though maybe I should have written that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way I would take the option. I can't imagine many with children would.


[ QUOTE ]
My purpose with the question was to 'force' people into choosing between history and a complete unknown based on where we think/guess humanity are headed. That's also why I chose the minimum 75 years limit, to get away from any 'comfort zone'. That people take a choice because they think it is going to 'suck less' or because they it is going to be great isn't really a concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it should be. Both are going to suck, for various reasons. You just wouldn't *fit*. Given the greater mobility we have today, and will likely have in the future, the future will probably be better.

[tame_deuces]

Well, I don't find compromising middleground answers very interesting in questions like these - because everybody would choose those. Its the same when you conduct survey research, you have to avoid the 'one size fits all' answers if you want to find anything interesting.

Therefore the scenario is either 75-3000 years forward or backwards, with no 'middleground' scenario which would skewer the answers to be completely uninteresting.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't find compromising middleground answers very interesting in questions like these - because everybody would choose those. Its the same when you conduct survey research, you have to avoid the 'one size fits all' answers if you want to find anything interesting.

Therefore the scenario is either 75-3000 years forward or backwards, with no 'middleground' scenario which would skewer the answers to be completely uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I choose 4AM this morning - I have the lottery numbers. What's uninteresting about that? Hey?

Hey?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't find compromising middleground answers very interesting in questions like these - because everybody would choose those. Its the same when you conduct survey research, you have to avoid the 'one size fits all' answers if you want to find anything interesting.

Therefore the scenario is either 75-3000 years forward or backwards, with no 'middleground' scenario which would skewer the answers to be completely uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I choose 4AM this morning - I have the lottery numbers. What's uninteresting about that? Hey?

Hey?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want today's lottery numbers:
1. No I'm a multi-billionaire, using time on the lottery would lose me monies.
2. Yes.
3. Hell yes.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[hitch1978]

3. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[rebuyboy]

go forward 3000 years ldo. u have to realize that you would only be an idiot in the future for like 10 years then u would learn how to live in the new society. just realize, every new baby born is an "idiot" when they are really young, but by the time they are in their 20s most won't be.

also going back in time would change alot of the stuff that happened. Just you being in the world then the butterfly effect states that you would not be able to predict everything u think u might be able to now

[hitch1978]

You could certainly predict scientific truths that were inevident at the time.

[Splendour]

It took me a while to think of an answer to this post. I'm very curious about the future, but if I go forward I might miss the Rapture besides I'm one of Jerry's Kids when it comes to technology so in the future if I can understand anything I'll still almost definitely be obsolete. I may appear as a Neanderthal to them so they will cage me and study me and I may be unable to return back in time if I'm imprisoned.

So I opt to go backwards in time to the year 30 A.D. I plan on having some drapes tailored into that era's garments and buying a veil. I will smuggle along the highest quality video camera I can find and follow Jesus for 3 years up until 10 minutes after the Last Supper. That way I can bring back pictures and put an end to these crazy debates once and for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rResKXjKqjQ

[Lestat]

I probably do underestimate how valuable human intelligence is to survival. Even in a cataclysmic event, I guess human ingenuity would prevail (if survival was at all possible). But the odds aren't with us.

Among animal organisms I think the shark is the oldest surviving species. So far, no species has survived forever. Do you guys really think man will be the first due to his intelligence?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rResKXjKqjQ



[/ QUOTE ]

Please... out of respect for good music, please stop linking to these horrid music videos. /images/graemlins/mad.gif Posting illogical arguments is one thing. Posting these videos is worse.

[Splendour]

You're not required to click on any links. Click the X button and get out of it if you don't like it.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not required to click on any links. Click the X button and get out of it if you don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do get out of it. I'm just asking you kindly to be respectful to music. Obviously you can choose to ignore it. Thought your Christian value might allow you to do the right thing. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, no species has survived forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is meaningless.

Many species have survived many millions of years. 3000 years is a tiny timespan, relatively speaking.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pussy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly the reason I would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you'd agree it would be much higher +EV to go back say, 3 years so that you could get really rich and still in all likelihood end up with the same girl (if you still wanted to once you were loaded).

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So far, no species has survived forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is meaningless.

Many species have survived many millions of years. 3000 years is a tiny timespan, relatively speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. But our capacity for destruction (in one form or another), to this planet is unequaled and unprecendented.

With our rate of advancement, 3000 years is more than enough time for us to wipe ourselves out. Our technological advances in just the past few years has exponententially superceded the past 100,000 years.

The key is whether or not we're intelligent enough to survive our own destruction. Cataclysmic destruction in one form or another will come within the next few hundred years minimum. It wouldn't suprise me if it was even in our lifetime.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
It took me a while to think of an answer to this post. I'm very curious about the future, but if I go forward I might miss the Rapture

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're pretty safe there.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It took me a while to think of an answer to this post. I'm very curious about the future, but if I go forward I might miss the Rapture besides I'm one of Jerry's Kids when it comes to technology so in the future if I can understand anything I'll still almost definitely be obsolete. I may appear as a Neanderthal to them so they will cage me and study me and I may be unable to return back in time if I'm imprisoned.

So I opt to go backwards in time to the year 30 A.D. I plan on having some drapes tailored into that era's garments and buying a veil. I will smuggle along the highest quality video camera I can find and follow Jesus for 3 years up until 10 minutes after the Last Supper. That way I can bring back pictures and put an end to these crazy debates once and for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rResKXjKqjQ

[/ QUOTE ]

No one would be more horrified and upset at this plan than a true Christian.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
go forward 3000 years ldo. u have to realize that you would only be an idiot in the future for like 10 years then u would learn how to live in the new society. just realize, every new baby born is an "idiot" when they are really young, but by the time they are in their 20s most won't be.

also going back in time would change alot of the stuff that happened. Just you being in the world then the butterfly effect states that you would not be able to predict everything u think u might be able to now

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'd be pretty useless and stupid 3000 years in the future, permanently, but so what? I'm not going there to teach biology.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'd be pretty useless and stupid 3000 years in the future, permanently, but so what? I'm not going there to teach biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

People in this thread underestimate just how much knowledge there is yet to be gained. There ain't much. Travel faster, build faster, use less labor. I'm not sure what kind of awesomeness you'd expect only 3k years forward.

I tend to agree that this species' likelihood of being around then is quite low. Evolution seems to be accelerating and h. sapiens certainly won't be h. sapiens then.

As for what I'd choose? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif I'd decide when given the opportunity and it'd be suitably random.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
People in this thread underestimate just how much knowledge there is yet to be gained.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, nanotech and gene tech are only 10-20 years old really.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People in this thread underestimate just how much knowledge there is yet to be gained.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, nanotech and gene tech are only 10-20 years old really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we're increasingly aware of and helping our evolution along. But the stumbling blocks are pretty sparse. You've got the immortality vector, the ability to traverse interstellar distances at very fast speeds (then FTL), and in hand with that, colonization.

After that, instanteous transfer between solar systems, then galaxies. It's just a matter of scale. It's a huge, huge mass of knowledge to plumb, to be sure, but in the end, it's just that.

The elements and Universe existed before h. sapiens. In a way, we're just shifting what's already there to expand and make our awareness more complex and interesting. What shape and form it takes? How big a dance floor do 6 billion humans need? How about 6 quadrillion? 6 googols?

Understanding that lets me say with certainity I'd take the random choice.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Would not go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this answer though. Ennui still has motion. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[vhawk01]

I was honestly hoping for a Fortuna post in this thread from the first time I read OP.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I was honestly hoping for a Fortuna post in this thread from the first time I read OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

&lt;wry grin&gt; Thanks.

It's a null question, imo. But going forward 3k years would be safer. It depends on your perception of risk and your ability to hold rationality in radically different situations.

Reductio ad absurdum, neh?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think it very risky to just pop into existence 3000 years from now. I wouldn't be at all confident there'd even be a planet left.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will most likely be a planet. Whether it will be capable of sustaining human life is the question.