Yeah. There was already the clear contradiction between Newton’s laws of constant force producing constant acceleration, and the known quantity that nothing could go faster than the speed of light.
However, he did do a whole lot quickly that would have taken a long time to figure out.
I’ve got a Yankee bias, but I’ll throw out George Washington. I don’t know of another person in history who led a revolution, and then install himself as dictator-for-life. Without that unique act, the United States would have been an extremely different place, which, arrogant I may be, I think would make the whole world different.
I would have to place Benjamin Franklin a little above Washington. Franklin had his finger in an awful lot of important pies in his day. Although often embracing the persona of country bumpkin (and often dismissed as such, then and now), he was, IMO, as sly as a fox, a genius of broad range and his influence in Western Civilization was far-reaching and very significant. While Washington was, indeed, a great man and the best man for the job at the time, I believe that his void would have been more easily filled than that of Franklin’s. I’m not sure if I would pick either of these fellows to contend for the: *Had he/she not lived, which historical persons contribution to the world would be missed the most? *.
Maybe Alexander the Great or J.S.Bach.
But she got no mitochondria from him; they are passed on by eggs, not sperm. The male equivalent would be the Y chromosome, which is solely passed on by males.
I agree with this, and would be tempted to include most inventors in the list as well.
Sounds like a good nomination to me. How long would it have taken someone else to sail out westward from Europe? Columbus did it based on his belief that the diameter of the earth was smaller than it is. How common was that belief among sailors of the time?
My first thought, like Metacom, was to nominate Plato.
Not common at all (Columbus was after all completely wrong). And time was against him. The whole point of these expeditions was to find a good route to sail directly from western Europe to eastern Asia. The main plan was to sail around Africa and across the Indian Ocean. Sailing west across the “Earth Ocean” was always regarded as a Plan B kind of operation. And the circa-African route had already been made when Columbus set out on the straight west route. If another twenty years had elapsed, sailing around Africa would have become an established route and confronting the unknown dangers of crossing the ocean would have seemed pointless.
I just can’t agree with a few mentioned here. For as important as Christopher Columbus is, I can’t believe that it’d have meant a much different course of history for the New World had he not done it. Someone would have made that voyage, either across the South Pacific, the North Atlantic or the South Atlantic. Perhaps even across the Bering Strait. Within a century someone would have discovered the New World, or at the very least somene would have learned to reckon the size and shape of the Earth leading to exploration over the Oceans. Once it was discovered, colonization and eventual European dominance of the natives would have happened. If it’d have taken an extra 100 years would it have made a huge difference in who dominated the region? I doubt it, England, France and Spain were going to be vying for it even if an Asian culture discovered it after word spread, they just had all the tools in place.
Also, Hitler is an unlikely choice. The Cold War likely would have happened anyways, and the strife in the Middle East would likely have happened anyways (even if Israel hadn’t been created and the Mid East carved up) without WWII. Relations between the Allies would have been mostly as it is as well. The only thing that might have been different is the outcome in the Pacific. Who knows if Japan would have started a war or not. And if they had, who knows if the US would have prevented them from dominating Korea and China. That to me is the only real wild card.
I think most inventors probably don’t fit the bill, nor do any artists or musicians. All of which would have had that void filled by another person in due time.
My vote may go to whomever is credited with invention of democracy. Socrates perhaps, as his philosophies in a way lead to that. I’m not sure how likely these things would have been without such a epiphany.
Seriously, I did physics at uni, and have since gone into accountancy (I gotta eat!). My idea of a beautiful and almost mystical system… hmm, general relativity vs double-entry book-keeping… tough call. :dubious:
A couple have mentioned “so-and-so don’t qualify because if they hadn’t done it, someone else would have.” Does this really count as a disqualifier? If it does, then the nominee must be a true original, completely divorced from the environment in which he/she was raised. Is there anyone who is not a product of their environment?
I would suggest that “if so-and-so didn’t do it than someone else would have” only means that “someone else” is the candidate then. “So-and-so” was the unique individual amongst all his/her contemporaries who actually did it and rightly lays claim to the greatness of that act.
My candidate: Newton! The breadth of that man’s activities, from optics to gravity - not to mention the inspired invention of the calculus! His theories reigned for hundreds of years to be only tweaked by Einstein (an impressive tweak, no doubt, but without Newton there would not have been an Einstein).
Aside from religious candidates (who arguably did not even exist) is there any facet of today’s society that cannot trace some line back to Newton?
Nobody has mentioned Johann Gutenberg yet? I think he would be worthy of mention at the very least. His contributions to the technology of printing and movable type brought books to the masses.
I think most inventors probably don't fit the bill, nor do any artists or musicians. All of which would have had that void filled by another person in due time.
I disagree. Had John Lennon not lived I do not believe the song ‘Imagine’ would have been penned by someone else. Or, no Michelangelo, there might very well be polka dots painted on the sistine chapels ceiling.
Inventors are a different story. Without Newton, certainly all of his discoveries would have made by other people in time, but physics class would have much harder remembering all of the additional names.
Maybe I didn’t make my point well. At the end of the war, people were ready to make him emperor. He went and turned in his commission to the congress, deferring power to them.
I don’t think many others would have done that in his shoes (I can’t think of any historical examples), and I think the whole US would have been different with any other person.
Dragwyr see post #3. dandrews02, I’m not saying that someone would have written Imagine or painted the Mona Lisa or anything else. I’m saying someone would have painted a painting which was embraced by art lovers because that’s what art lovers do. Someone would have written a peace ballad in the 70s that would have captured the spirit of the times if Lennon hadn’t been around. Wouldn’t have been the same song, but it’d have filled the need that existed.
While art and music are great things, they rarely if ever shape history. Frankly, even if those voids weren’t filled by contemporaries the artist wouldn’t be influential enough to be “important” in the global sense.
I believe that the disqualifier, “so-and-so doesn’t qualify because if they hadn’t done it, someone else would have” only applies if what they accomplished* is not time-critical. If a man’s accomplishments are time-critical, and there is but a small window of opportunity through which their accomplishments must traverse in order to be of consequence, then that man may be uniquely important in shaping the world. Although I hold science in higher regard than politics, I have to give the nod to politicians over scientists with regard to being more time-critical and therefore potentially more uniquely irreplaceable.
As much as I admire Newton, I generally view science as plodding along at it’s own pace (it’ll get there when it gets there, and be just as important when it does). I believe most, if not all of Newton’s contributions would today be realized had he not existed (even in time for Einstein’s quaint doodlings ). But, take a figure like Benjamin Franklin out of the equation, and the entire future of Western Civilization may easily have slid down an entirely different slippery slope. Without Franklin’s subtle brilliance, France may not have taken arms with America against the British, America may have remained under British monarchy rule, western democracy would be stunted or non-existent and the entire geopolitical landscape of the globe may today look entirely different. I don’t believe that a worthy Franklin-replacement was on deck at the exact time that he was needed, in more than a few critical times in colonial period history. Admittedly, no one was close to being a Newton equal in his day (or any day) either. However, most, if not all of Newton’s important scientific contributions may have subsequently been provided by many people over a long period of time without too much change in today’s society. Besides, if Franklin didn’t invent bi-focal glasses, a myopic Einstein may have postulated E=MC*-cubed**
I’m pursuaded by the “time-critical” argument to favour politicans over physicists, but I add this: It is difficult to point to whomever might have been on-deck for Franklin because Franklin gets all the press.
Societal forces are stronger than any individual - it is as if they demand someone fill a necessary role to move society to its next step. Overstated? probably - but if it were not true then Asimov’s pyschohistory could not be true
I agree that Washington was unique and magnanimous toward the ideals of democracy. Indeed, not many people would decline absolute power. However, in my opinion (and it may be the minority opinion), Franklin was actually more important in winning the war for America than Washington, in which case, Washington would not have had a country in which to decline the title of emperor.
). But, take a figure like Benjamin Franklin out of the equation, and the entire future of Western Civilization may easily have slid down an entirely different slippery slope. Without Franklin’s subtle brilliance, France may not have taken arms with America against the British, America may have remained under British monarchy rule, western democracy would be stunted or non-existent and the entire geopolitical landscape of the globe may today look entirely different. I don’t believe that a worthy Franklin-replacement was on deck at the exact time that he was needed, in more than a few critical times in colonial period history. Admittedly, no one was close to being a Newton equal in his day (or any day) either. However, most, if not all of Newton’s important scientific contributions may have subsequently been provided by many people over a long period of time without too much change in today’s society. Besides, if Franklin didn’t invent bi-focal glasses, a myopic Einstein may have postulated E=MC*-cubed**