“But Krauthammer argued that absent what Churchill did, Hitler would have ruled the world.”
Pretty hard to know what would have happened. Would there have been someone else to take his place? And why Churchill, why not Roosevelt; why not Stalin for that matter?
… Would there have been someone else to take his place? And why Churchill, why not Roosevelt; why not Stalin for that matter?
What the hell does that mean? Stalin, Churchill, and Rooselvelt are only human personifications of artificial reality.
The only meaning that can be discerned from this silly celebrated bunch of type-cast humanity is that the collective behavior of folks like this group has little relationship to any absolute truth.
I was actually clarifying my seconding of Gutenberg following your post, in response to the idea that someone else would have done it anyway. He’s still got my vote.
As for Einstein, relativity would still be with us without him. That was kind of my point with Gutenberg, it’s not just about who came up with the idea, or how it may have come about without them, but the circumstances surrounding their time and presentation of an idea/ thing.
Leonardo Da Vinci had popped into my head when I was going over the posts, but then it occurred to me, aside from his incredible foresight, what was really done with his ideas? I know things were done, but given the scope of his knowledge, he could have been the greatest good contributer to mankind, but he didn’t sell enough. Bell sold the telephone, the Wright brothers sold the airplane, Edison sold everything he could get his hands on. Others may well have been on the same path, but we might not have these things today if it were not for the selling in addition to the intuition.
I think objections could be raised to most any person or argument mentioned. It usually turns out to be quite far-fetched to claim that an invention or discovery would not have been made if a certain person hadn’t been there to make it. It might have taken a few years or decades more, but most of the people mentioned also built their work on the shoulders of Giants. Einstein got his Nobel Prize on the photoelectric effect -which he did not discover. If not for that work, had he had that much influence that the theory of relativity would have been seen as more than a funny concept? As for Jenner, his role is limited to the area of smallpox, and the claim that the discovery had not been made without him can easily be shown to be inaccurate by the sheer number of people involved in the field. He happened to be the first to be able to convince the powers that be of vaccination. He hadn’t been the first to use cowpox serum, and had very little idea what he was doing, beyond making people immune.
Instead of Jenner, one could easily suggest Pasteur, who systematically developed a general model for the development of vaccines still used, in a refined version, today, and coined the germ theory for diseases, for the first time establishing the direct connection between pathogenic microorganism and disease. But this is not to suggest that Pasteur is a viable candidate for the title, but rather that there’s always someone else who could be seen as an alternative in a given field.
I’d say whoever first developed the scientific method, ie realised that if you just test what works and what doesn’t and stick with what works, you can invent ever more complex things until, before you know it, you land on the Moon.
Yes, it seems obvious to us now, but so does the wheel, and that was probably invented in just a couple of places and then spread to the rest of the world. Also consider that the scientific method still isn’t accepted by millions of goofballs.
While he was an unqualified total bastard of a person, Thomas Edison probably made the biggest impact (though it could be argued to be both positive and negative). When I was growing up my ancient hillbilly relatives still talked about the wonder and awe of suddenly seeing the countryside lit up at night for the first time in their lifetimes (or for the first time in 4 billion years, for that matter). For the first time also, respectable businesses didn’t have to close at sundown or soon after OTOH, though if you look into the eyes of any smalltown Wal-Mart employee on the 2 a.m. shift they’re probably not too thrilled with this change.
Edison was also instrumental in the creation (and even more influential in the popularization) of movies/newsreels, the format that changed the way we think, process information, and conceive reality more in 100 years than it had changed in the last 100,000 years. (It also allowed writers like Faulkner, Fitzgerald, and Renault to pay the bills and keep churning out good books, as well as opening up southern California as a bizarre mecca [which happened when film companies were fleeing Edison’s dictatorial control of the east coast film industry).
Of course while not Edison, the significance of game show host Bert Convy on world culture shouldn’t be underestimated either.
Sorry, but Edison merely was the guy who managed to convince others on practically everything attributed to him. If not for him, someone else would have made the discovery, since there were plenty of people working on the same stuff at the same time. Some even were a wee bit faster with the one or other discovery, but weren’t listened to.
Mankind has collectively, as a whole, improved upon a prior thought or idea throughout history. Someone dreamt it, someone made it, someone sold it, someone bought it. All of it is borrowed from an original idea. The first guy. fire. See I borrowed someone’s idea.
Jesus has had the greatest influence on mankind - for the better - of any person who has ever lived. He taught the only real message of hope - salvation of the soul. When we die, that’s the only thing that will matter. Everything in this life is transitory. Everything except the soul.
There would be no wars or hunger in this world if we followed His teachings.
It’s not even close. Jesus was the greatest human to ever live.
I think the answer to the OP is Simpson, Homer Simpson, he’s the greatest guy in history! From the, Town of Springfield, he’s about to hit a Chesnut tree! Auuuuugh!
Well, since you are repeating yourself needlessly, I have to point this out: we’re looking for the world’s greatest real and factual human here, not a character in a mythology.
The only message of hope? Salvation of the soul? Utterly unsubstantiated. Pure, 100% unsupported opinion and no discernible fact in sight. Not that having an opinion is in any way wrong – but packaging it as fact is.
Really? Can you argue this point in any manner without boot-strapping your argument by referencing it to itself or to a closely related and uncomfirmed system of knowledge such as all the belief that the Bible has imparted unto you?
Maybe. Nevertheless, you could say exactly the same things you said above of any important figure from any religion. The reason you say Jesus is because you happened to grow up with that concept and believe (note that word) in it.
pkbites,
“Forgive me. Please, please forgive me!” Huh? Being funny is not a sin, so “forgive” you for what?
I tried to watch Homer’s show, but I just didn’t find it funny. To each his own, I guess.:o
Abe,
“The reason you say Jesus is because you happened to grow up with that concept and believe (note that word) in it.”
You really should not assume anything about me. I did not “grow up with that concept…” I grew up a “Who-Cares” (I did not become a Christian until I was 27 years old).
You believe Jesus was a myth. I believe Jesus was real. It seems we share one thing - we both believe something.
Because the OP asks a good question and this is not the forum for sillyness. But I’ve been up all night doing night audits and I’m beyond tired and i just couldn’t resist. I guess I was just asking the Mods to go easy on me.