# Of Time Travel and Genocide



## Saigonnus (Dec 29, 2012)

I had a thought the other day; based off a dream I had the night before. Basically, the idea is that an alien world is on the verge of destruction from a different alien race that attacked without provocation or warning (they didn't know they even existed). A scientist on the doomed world just perfected a process that would allow a person to take a certain serum that gives them the ability to mentally travel through time, leaving their body behind for their travels.

Since there is only enough serum developed for a single person, and there isn't time to find a better candidate, the scientist himself takes the serum and becomes the worlds' first time traveler. 

The catch is that the traveler must "hitchhike" within another person/creatures' brain and that person/creature must basically give them permission to be there. This is the only way to be able to have any influence over the event around them and it is a slow process to actually have meaningful communication between the host and the traveler. Initially it is a single word or emotion that crosses to the consciousness of the host, but given enough time and willingness on the part of the host it could potentially reach a state of shared consiousness. 

Basically the basic outline I had in mind (as part of the dream) is that the scientist hitchhikes in the mind of one of the aliens by exploiting the dreams of the alien to "trick" him into giving permission (since he thinks its a dream) and then goes back in time of THIER homeworld to a point where history could be changed to prevent the attack from happening.

There was a point in the history of the planet that it was also heavily peopled by a more docile race of creatures that these creatures attacked without warning and without just cause. He attempts to prevent the destruction of those creatures, teaching them what technology he can with the materials they have access to to help them overcome the more numerous "insert alien race here". 

The logical conclusion is that the scientist suceeds in helping them, but the question nagging me is how far should he go to protect his future? To guarantee the survival of his own planet, he'd basically have to exterminate the evil race, lest they rebel against their eventual "captors". Could you sympathize with a guy who is responsible for the extermination of a race of creatures?


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 29, 2012)

You can sympathize with it, but that doesn't mean it would be everyone's cup of tea. For instance in Ender's Game everyone tried to commit genocide... 



Spoiler: Ender's Game spoiler



although they ended up saving some.



In Doctor Who, the Daleks are a terrible alien race at war with the Time Lords. The wars between the races got so bad that they sent the Doctor back in time to prevent the Daleks from ever being created. The Doctor failed (chose not to commit genocide), but since his actions occurred before the Daleks ever attacked the Time Lords, he actually provoked them!


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 29, 2012)

Overall it's an interesting idea. Personally, having a serum as the time travel device doesn't jive with me, but that's just me. As for the character being sympathetic. Sure. I think I could sympathize, but I think one of the keys to making this really work is to bring up and treat honestly the issues of the genocidal act. Bringing up the question for the reader to mull over will draw them in, kind of asking them _what would you do in this creature's place. Could you do it?_ 

If the arguments for and against committing act aren't given weight, then to me, the story will ring false, and if that happened while I was reading, I call BS and the book gets thrown across the room.


----------



## Saigonnus (Dec 29, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Overall it's an interesting idea. Personally, having a serum as the time travel device doesn't jive with me, but that's just me.



My initial thought was the serum, it "unlocks" something within the mind that makes it possible, since the brain is capable of things we haven't even discovered yet and it isn't like the person's body goes back in time, just their consciousness. If you think it too far-fetched I can always use the old standby all-purpose "machine" that makes it possible.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 30, 2012)

Hi,

I'm a little confused by the hitchhiking thing. Surely he doesn't need to hitchhike to go back in time, he sends his mind back in time to an earlier epoch where he then has to find a host to take him in. However that's probably me just being confused.

Now my thought her would be, first how does this scientist know the prehistory of an alien race he'd never met until they attacked his people? And second, why would he have a problem with harming them? If they had come out of nowhere and attacked his people, threatening them with destruction, would he really be that ethically torn?

His problem as I see it, would relate to his bond with the alien in the past. Given that the bond sounds tight, would it be possible for the host not to know his dark designs? I doubt it. But if he goes to the host from another race that has already been wiped out by the bad aliens, I think they would be accepting of his plans, provided they aren't horrendously noble themselves. After all if he's trying to save his race, surely they would be motivated to try and save theirs.

But equally he doesn't need to engage in genocide. There are other ways to stop a civilization progressing, or progressing in a violent expansionist way. Simply find the key figures from their history and steer their thoughts in another direction other than advancement.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Dec 30, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> The logical conclusion is that the scientist suceeds in helping them, but the question nagging me is how far should he go to protect his future? To guarantee the survival of his own planet, he'd basically have to exterminate the evil race, lest they rebel against their eventual "captors". Could you sympathize with a guy who is responsible for the extermination of a race of creatures?



Honestly? No. 

Genocide is a very serious thing. In Clive Barker's Abarat books, there's this prince who is basically the chief asskicker among the good guys. His wife was assassinated by a dragon. (Not just killed, it was basically a dragon hitman.) As a result, he has sworn to personally exterminate all dragons. He's literally travelling the world and killing every single dragon he can find. He even does things like step on dragon eggs and break his word while dealing with them. 

And the thing is, _nobody calls him out on it_. Everyone in the books (at least the two first ones) just kinda shruggs their shoulders and go: "Well, dragon killed his wife, of course he's pissed." It's like we're actually supposed to agree that this was a reasonable course of action. I found that really jarring and kinda started to dislike the prince guy pretty much right away. It's as if an alien decided to whipe out all of humanity simply because one human killed his mate.

Here's the crux of the matter: Genocide will always involve you killing people who have not done anything to you. And that gets _even worse _when you involve time travel, because suddenly you are killing people for things that _haven't happened yet._

Think about it. You go back in time and shoot Hitler before he becomes fÃ¼hrer. But young Hitler has not yet commited the crimes for which you are judging him, and now he never will, meaning you just murdered an innocent man. _You cannot hold people accountable for things they haven't done._ That's the exact opposite of how justice is supposed to work.

If this time traveling guy commits genocide on a whole species for reasons that, from their perspective, have not yet come to pass, he's exactly as bad as them and the only excuse he has for is it that _this_ group of living beings mean less to him than that _other _group of living beings.

Here's a thought: Suppose he fails to kill all of them and the attempt cause them to rebel. They learn about his planet and decide that they must exterminate his people lest they try the same thing again, so they go over there and attack without provocation or warning, which is of course the event that started the whole mess. Now you have a temporal loop of retaliatory genocide where both sides can claim they were attacked first, and down that path lies only madness.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 30, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> My initial thought was the serum, it "unlocks" something within the mind that makes it possible, since the brain is capable of things we haven't even discovered yet and it isn't like the person's body goes back in time, just their consciousness. If you think it too far-fetched I can always use the old standby all-purpose "machine" that makes it possible.



I don't think it's far-fetched. IMHO, it just needs some sensible techno babble to reasonably explain things. 



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Think about it. You go back in time and shoot Hitler before he becomes fÃ¼hrer. But young Hitler has not yet commited the crimes for which you are judging him, and now he never will, meaning you just murdered an innocent man. _You cannot hold people accountable for things they haven't done._ That's the exact opposite of how justice is supposed to work.



This is true enough, but it depends on what the character is out for. Is it vengeance or justice?



> If this time traveling guy commits genocide on a whole species for reasons that, from their perspective, have not yet come to pass, he's exactly as bad as them and the only excuse he has for is it that _this_ group of living beings mean less to him than that _other _group of living beings.



To me that motivation works. Heck it worked for Star Trek, in the latest movie, and in an old Voyager Episode. Given a chance to save either a friend/family member or a stranger, the friend/family member always wins out. 



> Here's a thought: Suppose he fails to kill all of them and the attempt cause them to rebel. They learn about his planet and decide that they must exterminate his people lest they try the same thing again, so they go over there and attack without provocation or warning, which is of course the event that started the whole mess. Now you have a temporal loop of retaliatory genocide where both sides can claim they were attacked first, and down that path lies only madness.



In this type of story, this is the type of consequences I like to see. It's very Twilight Zone.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 31, 2012)

IMHO The problem with time travel is that once someone can do it, nothing is ever set.

Don't like an outcome, simply go back and change it, then someone can go back alittle further and change what you change the first time.
With the only spirit time travel, really affecting the outcome is limited, and cashing in on antiques would be almost impossible, cashing in on sports betting, would be limited to what the person could memorize.  
Knowing what altered history for someone that wanted to change what was changed would be difficult unless the traveller told what or how he/she did it.
The serum limit in your story, keeps time travelling to one person, unless he succeeds there won't be more made until the conquers think to interpret the notes and findings.  
I would say it would not drastically disrupt the flow of a world, which is what time travel does if not restrained properly.

Every birth could be prevented, every battle outcome be changed, every part of history could be changed.  Key heros in a battle might never be born.  The possibilities of change are endless when you can change the past, and that past can change too.

Then again, the change you make might cause the time travel formula from ever being created, thus postponing further time travel until it is discovered again. Then again, causing the problem that prevents the proper formula guarantees you will be the only one to know itm even if the former you doesn't. Then you can't accidently give the secret away or have someone steal the idea that wasn't invented in the current reality.
You have the formula in your mind, but no one else does.
You use your mind hitch hiking to make more serum, hide it, then get the maker killed before he tells anyone.   You simply go to the place it was hidden and use it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

> Think about it. You go back in time and shoot Hitler before he becomes fÃ¼hrer. But young Hitler has not yet commited the crimes for which you are judging him, and now he never will, meaning you just murdered an innocent man. You cannot hold people accountable for things they haven't done. That's the exact opposite of how justice is supposed to work.



I think that, as a writer, you need to understand opinions like this, but they are quite limiting.  One of the great benefits of being a writer of speculative fiction is that you get to speculate.  You get to ask these kind of questions and build a story around it.  You say: what if my character had a chance to kill Hitler?  Would it do it?  Would it be right?

If you think instead "You cannot hold people accountable for things they haven't done. That's the exact opposite of how justice is supposed to work," you're really limiting your options by taking hard stances.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that exploring the roots of morality by putting characters in difficult situations is what speculative fiction is all about.  A good author looks at these kind of issues in depth but shouldn't be constrained, imo, by what people "cannot" do.


----------



## JCFarnham (Dec 31, 2012)

There's a great time travel story centering around killing hitler that takes the form of a forum conversation. I can't remember the title but I believe one of the big genre publishers has it up on their website (again, who knows which one haha)

I was great though  interesting stancw in whether you "should or shouldn't".


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> Could you sympathize with a guy who is responsible for the extermination of a race of creatures?



Doesn't Orson Scott Card make you do just this in Ender's Game and sequels? As Zero Angel points out, they save an egg or something, but there's no doubt that this is mass genocide/xenocide. Card sets it up in a way that you still sympathize with the character. Even if you set it up so the character knowingly engaged in it, I think you could still build sympathy for the character, though the hurdle would be higher.


----------



## Addison (Dec 31, 2012)

In a short story I had time travel based on electro-magnetism, radio waves and brain waves. The character wanted to travel back in time to his grandfather in WW2 to save him from the factory blast which resulted in an injury which lasted and grew over the years, resulting in his death. To get there he created a machine which logged brainwaves from his grandfather's friend, plugged the waves into the machine, tweaked them into energy and radio waves which opened a portal. So in a way he needed someone who had been in the past in order to get there.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 1, 2013)

Another thing you need to decide is what kind of time travel you are using. I don't mean machine or anything, but rather, by going back does the person cause the events of the present (in which case time is immutable or at most you may be able to bend it but it always goes back to the front), does it create a new timeline (in which case the person's world was already decimated/overthrown/etc and those people don't come back to life, he just creates an alternate world where all the aliens die instead), does it create a new timeline and destroy the old timeline (causing a paradox by the person not having any need to go back to wipe out the aliens) or what.

It's perfectly reasonable that you don't need to explain this at all, and that you can be wishy-washy on the rules anyway, but I think it's important to think about those things. 

I'm fine with the serum by the way. Reminds me of Assassin's Creed, but drug-based instead of machine, and can contact anyone, not just ancestors/family members. You could even throw out the idea that the "people" the serum contacts for him are soul-mates or even his soul un-reincarnated. In which case, he'd have a much larger moral dilemma destroying the aliens (not just because it would mean his own death, but because it would mean he'd be painfully aware that there is no difference in spirit between the two).


----------



## Saigonnus (Jan 1, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Another thing you need to decide is what kind of time travel you are using. I don't mean machine or anything, but rather, by going back does the person cause the events of the present (in which case time is immutable or at most you may be able to bend it but it always goes back to the front), does it create a new timeline (in which case the person's world was already decimated/overthrown/etc and those people don't come back to life, he just creates an alternate world where all the aliens die instead), does it create a new timeline and destroy the old timeline (causing a paradox by the person not having any need to go back to wipe out the aliens) or what.



I honestly haven't given it much thought, I figured to let the idea stew in my brain for a while. I put down on paper the basic concepts that were apparent at the time. I would think it would set into motion a new chain of events that potentially could affect everything, so a second timeline seems more likely. If the traveler goes back and helps to subjugate (at the least) these creatures that would come to destroy his home, they would suddenly have a different history, one including their slavery and or extermination. The only thing I know aboutt the creatures thus far is that they breed exceptionally fast, bearing litters of offspring, so subjugation probably wouldn't work for the long term, since they'd soon come to outnumber their prison guards. 


"The serum" as it was concieved allows the user to hitchhike in anyone's mind, so long as they had permission; which of course takes a degree of mental control over your own mind before you can try to enter someone else's. The easiest way Ithought to get implied permission is to try and enter while the other person is sleeping and their mental safeguards are likely more relaxed (i.e. they may think it's only a dream).

I had that thought myself, about the moral dilemma, perhaps he discovers the reason for their unwarranted attack; maybe the creatures have some exotic disease that requires certain elements to make the cure (or even just the medication to keep it at bay) and this disease threatens their own existance leaving them little choice in finding the element or perishing. I think such a thing would add depth to the story and could give the readers a reason to sympathize with the creatures a little.

Edited: There would be no paradox, they didn't "invent" time travel to rescue the planet, it was invented years before via their natural technological progression for the study of their own history (You can learn alot from your own history). They simply utilize a known technology to a different means.


----------



## Addison (Jan 2, 2013)

Zero Angel makes a good point. As made in a short story a while ago (not on the site) time traveling had been created specifically for hunting, sending paying patrons to pre-historic times to kill dinosaurs and such. Before they left the city was talking about the man who was just elected as president and glad that the hard-butt, iron teeth person wasn't elected. They go back in time and follow the levitating tracks to not leave any traces. One of the hunters chickens out when he sees a T-Rex and the party leader sends him back to the time-shuttle. On the way back he slips off the trail into the mud. He cleans off his boot on the way back, mostly. When the others get back the leader notices the mud, but as it's so small and the rex is on their tail they don't have time to go to the spot and fix it. But when they're back in their own time, things are different. The jerk who had not made president was president and everyone's view of the world was just as hard grit and everything. (The guy who left the foot print died) 

So check to see if you want time travel to be a component in itself or if it's a plot device to lead to historical mis haps.


----------



## Devor (Jan 11, 2013)

Saigonnus said:


> The logical conclusion is that the scientist suceeds in helping them, but the question nagging me is how far should he go to protect his future? To guarantee the survival of his own planet, he'd basically have to exterminate the evil race, lest they rebel against their eventual "captors". Could you sympathize with a guy who is responsible for the extermination of a race of creatures?



Maybe if you learned that the "Genocidal" race had committed genocide against the "Passive" race through something like a virus, and that virus was then redirected against the "Genocidal" race, most readers would be able to sympathize.  Not agree, don't get me wrong, but sympathize.  Literary justice tends to have more of a bite to it than reality.

If the guy is encouraging the "Passive" race to wage a slow and painful genocidal war, or lining slaves up in death camps, I don't see anybody sympathizing with that.




Penpilot said:


> Sure. I think I could sympathize, but I think one of the keys to making this really work is to bring up and treat honestly the issues of the genocidal act. Bringing up the question for the reader to mull over will draw them in, kind of asking them _what would you do in this creature's place. Could you do it?_



To me, that kind of thing is a huge turn off.  Don't get me wrong, the moment should have all the weight appropriate for the characters involved.  And characters can fight about their opinions.  But once a novel devolves into some sort of moral analysis, I find myself skipping pages and rolling my eyes and completely torn out of the immersion of the story.  It doesn't even matter what "side" they take or what the topic is or whether I agree or disagree, the fact is I read for a story and resent being put through the author's moral rationalizations.  Chances are the analysis is weak or incomplete anyway.

Don't get me wrong.  Characters can have opinions and fight about them.  And I'll give some slack to children's books, if it's appropriate.  But I'm an adult, and I can form my own moral opinion about a situation (assuming I would even want to) without the author giving me three to choose from and having his win.


----------

