Which individual has contributed the most to humanity through their death? Whether intentional or not.
Mods: weighing up with this should be in IMHO or not, but I think there are some good debates to be had here.
I’d say it’s a tossup between Stalin and Mao. By the time Hitler died there wasn’t much more bad he could have done. Stalin or Mao living another few years would have prolonged big and nasty situations that we know got better after they died.
Maybe Reinhard Heydrich, who died while still in a position of power.
But there is another aspect to this question. People who were on track to do good, and whose violent death increased sympathy for their cause in society. Contenders are Jesus Christ, Joanne d’Arc, JF Kennedy.
This is an unanswerable question. No doubt some sort of chaos and mayhem that would have occurred was avoided by some people dying before they had become famous and powerful enough to spark it. So we would never know what was avoided. Like some future Hitler being miscarried when his mother trips and falls down some stairs.
I would go with Stalin.
Not a dictator (I feel even if they’d done worse, like Mao or the like, they’d already been such a negative that outweighs it)
I’m thinking someone like Marie Curie? I mean, her death was a side-effect, but her work benefited us a lot. That sort of thing.
I’m going to go with Konstantin Chernenko. His death created the opportunity for Mikhail Gorbachev to become General Secretary of the Soviet Union and that led to the end of the Cold War.
If Chernenko had hung on for a few more years, somebody else might have succeeded him and the Soviet regime might have continued.
Henrietta Lacks. The cell line derived from her fatal tumor made possible, among many other things, the Salk Vaccine. Henrietta Lacks - Wikipedia
Yes, that’s a good one.
Nice. We have an answer.
Jesus?
Was that too obvious?
No, really, I would have to agree that Henrietta Lacks is the answer.
Jesus.
For someone who is not God, I suspect it might be some unknown character whose death enabled a much more important person to survive.
Yes, but that doesn’t make the death beneficial in and of itself – presumably the same cell line could have been cultivated if the cancer had been successfully removed or treated (after biopsy extraction of a sample).
I’d go along with those who’ve nominated Stalin and Mao.
Their deaths transformed the Soviet Union and Mao from an ambitious powers driven by ideology into more cautious, more conservative, more conventional dictatorships.
As long as Stalin was alive, another Purge or reckless adventure was likely. And there was no telling where Mao’s crazy whims (the Cultural Revolution, “Let 100 Flowers Bloom,” rapid industrialization, equally rapid deindustrialization…) would lead.
Kruschev and Deng were no saints, but they weren’t bloodthirsty maniacs, either.
Stalin was certainly evil, but he wasn’t a ‘reckless adventurer’. (I think that title fits Mao, though, at least in some regards). Trotsky and his allies were the reckless adventurers: Stalin was the cold, calculating type who knew exactly what to do to stay in power.
A death doesn’t count if it doesn’t take.
duplicate
nevermind. my mistake.
I think Jakob Kolletschka deserves a nomination. His death (following a cut from an infected scalpel) and the findings from his post-mortem was what sparked Semmelweis’ theory of cadaveric contamination, and ultimately led to the practice of obstetricians and surgeons to wash their filthy hands!
(It took some time to get accepted, though - and it didn’t do much good for Semmelweis.)