One thing to consider, assuming the red one is mental time travel (which is the only way it'd really be at all useful), you're essentially murdering everyone who exists from your subjective present to the jump point to replace with at best very similar clones and possibly no one or completely different people. Then you have to also assume the timeline isn't fixed and you can actually change things, and thus contend with butterfly effect causing divergence making your knowledge less useful. Sure, little changes probably won't impact things on a global scale for a while, but once you start doing big things like investing or preventing terrorist attacks or something that could cause major divergence. Ethically any kind of useful time travel should be limited to "World is already wiped out" scale scenarios where the alternative is worse.
Also just hope that major events are not converging points in multiple timelines, otherwise you will be aware of all the terrible things that will happen but will practically be unable to stop them
I plan on convincing my mom to leave my dad. Sadly, 6 isn’t young enough to prevent him from ruining her life, though. But at least she’ll get out earlier, and also I can hopefully prevent her from having a surgery that completely changed her life for the worse.
I disagree that we shouldn’t constrain the use of words to their definitions. It’s what helps make the meaning of sentences the most clear for everyone. If people had actually done that then the definition of “literally” wouldn’t include “figuratively” and a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.
Otherwise we could end up with people saying that when they wrote “all white people deserve to die” what they actually meant was that they deserve to live, since that’s how they use the word “die”. It’s nonsensical to me.
Kind of a bad example, because mankind very clearly stems from ‘humankind’. And people are lazy and prefer using short words. The unfairness is rather that women got stuck with the words requiring more characters. But that is a phenomenon of the English language and not present in others.
However, in most languages the words for man/male are closer to human(kind) than female/woman, which very clearly shows the historic patriarchal influence, coming back around to your point after all.
Interestingly enough, in old English you had “werman” and “wifman” for man and woman respectively, in which case referring to all with “mankind” makes perfect sense. So the originator for mankind seems more likely to be from that than the explanation that it’s a shortening of “humankind” to me.
i.imgur.com
Active