The Duct Tape Avenger wrote:
> Time travel is a theme that is commonly used in science fiction. In
> many cases, it is well known by the protagonists that time travel is a
> dangerous game, and that changes in the timeline can have
> unforeseeable results. However, the protagonists do not always follow
> the guidelines that they espouse, and they go back in time to prevent
> some disastrous or otherwise less than optimal course of events. This
> poses the question: What are the ethics of time travel? When do the
> risks become acceptable and the ends justify the means?
>
> There are a number of factors that must be considered here. The most
> obvious is the magnitude of the event you are trying to prevent. One
> who would normally be completely averse to mucking with the timeline
> might be willing to take the risk if thousands of lives are at stake.
>
> Another is whether different points on the timeline are more "sacred"
> than others. For instance, one might be willing to change something
> that happened yesterday, but not 100 years ago, because of the many
> changes it could lead to. But would the change yesterday affect the
> next 100 years any less? One might say that an affect on future events
> doesn't matter, since it hasn't happened yet. But is this a valid
> point? The future may be undiscovered, but does that make it okay to
> change the way it would occur "naturally?" After all, it will be
> someone's past someday.
>
> There is a theory that there are an infinite number of universes, each
> playing out a different outcome of probability. If this is so, then
> does time travel really matter? After all, when you change your
> reality, you're actually just creating another one that runs in
> parallel to the original. Nothing really changes, except for your
> perspective.
>
> Thoughts?
I would advocate going back in time to avert the 9/11 attacks! That
would
save over 3,000 lives, and possibly avert the Iraq War by depriving Bush
of a handy excuse to invade Iraq!