Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

What is one thing you would change about history?

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,636 ✭✭✭✭RobbingBandit


    Change history is the assignment here the army would have been mobilised instead of fighting each other in the civil war.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,282 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Religion was not invented. It’s just humans developing beliefs and views etc. imposssible to not have this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,217 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    I'd have Columbus' 3 ships fall off the edge of the world about 500 miles west of the Canaries.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭BaywatchHQ


    I was going to say the plantations of Ulster which is the reason Ireland was divided and it caused the Troubles. However i wouldn't have existed without that given that I have small amounts of Protestant ancestry. I suppose someone would have existed who looked a bit like me if you look at it that way.

    Protestants also have small amounts of local Irish ancestry.

    It is the same with southerners, they have small amounts of ancestry from the English too. So we are all just physical reminders of different events in Irish history.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,339 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Was going to post something profound for like 100 yes ago, but let's go with something less "shock and awe" and more "that could be interesting", when the industrial revolution was emerging, or at the outset, sustainability would have been mandated as a fundamental requirement for design.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 98,124 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    image.png

    ..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,008 ✭✭✭Hamsterchops


    Swap the Vikings for Rastafarians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,345 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    A stupid thing I didn't do in 1997



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭happyoutscan


    What a nonsensically arrogant and ridiculous post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,877 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Of course it was invented. Fair enough, it's been invented about 10,000 times in 10,000 different ways but since absolutely none of them were based on fact or evidence, these deities were absolutely invented as they couldn't have been discovered (since they never existed).

    Sometimes religion was created for the simple reason that individuals were too arrogant to answer a child's question with an honest "I don't know", more often, however, it was created for the purposes of the coercive control of a population.

    It's very possible for religion not to exist. We simply need to stop tolerating the notion that a large number of victims of a brainwashing scam lends it's tenets credibility. Even if one discounts the wars started and thousands killed each year in the name of one deity or another, there are still millions of infants being ritually mutilated every year due to the tolerance for the centuries old superstitions of illiterate goat herds. It's disgusting (as is the wealth many of these religions hoard while preaching the virtues of poverty).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,477 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Eastern Europe communist regimes tried to suppress religion, and it didn't work. If anything, it resurfaced even stronger when those regimes felled. So if you were to try to really ban all religions some of them will go underground and become even stronger, and at least one of them will call for violence from its followers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 FatBudda


    Worldwide, the invention of social media and smart phones.

    Domestically, stopping the state bodies and councils from buildings housing stock and putting it all in the hands of private developers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Migdal_Or


    Not taking a precautionary principle approach to social media, the internet as a whole, and smartphones from day one was a mistake. We should have introduced them with meaningful restrictions early on and then gradually relaxed those limits as we better understood the risks and impacts. Instead, we allowed widespread, largely unregulated adoption, and now we are trying, likely unsuccessfully, to impose controls in reverse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,477 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Freedom is never a mistake. There is no problem with the internet or social media, the problem is with the people. Don't like what's on social media? No one forces you to look.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭Benedict XVI


    People could have said the very same about the printing press, or the radio or the TV when they arrived.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭Benedict XVI


    I would have had the Irish people adopt the new religion i.e the Protestant religion be it Anglican or Calvinists/Presbyterian back in the day when the likes of England and Scotland were.

    Would have saved a hell of a lot of hassle in the past 400 years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Migdal_Or


    True, every major communication technology has had widespread adoption before society fully understood the consequences. But unlike the printing press, radio, or TV, social media and smartphones are interactive, data driven, and scale globally in real time, a feature known from the very start and built into their design. That level of systemic impact is unprecedented, which is why a precautionary approach would have mattered more, in my mind.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,420 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …or maybe humans are just prone in creating mythical beliefs in order to try explain our extremely complex world, but the institutions this type of thinking creates, eventually become corrupted and dysfunctional over time, again, simply due to the complexity of our species



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭crusd


    I would change nothing before 2015 as to do so would likely set off a chian of events that could have resulted in none of my children ever having been born.

    Post 2015 - orchastrated the release of the Epstein files in early 2016 which would have torpedoed both Trumps and Clintons candidacy preventing the rise of MAGA and the de-stabilising effect that vile ideology is having on the entire globe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,477 ✭✭✭Cordell


    I would change nothing before 2015 as to do so would likely set off a chian of events that could have resulted in none of my children ever having been born.

    And yet you're happy to cause other's children from being born, all while thinking you're doing it for the greater good. You're ok with removing people from existence simply because you don't like a particular ideology - a bit fascist don't you think?

    But it doesn't work like that, and if you're overthinking it the paradox appears: you changing something about the past will delete your motivation to change that something about the past.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,339 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    It's After Hours dude, not a formal request for some action to be taken.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,877 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Religion is, of course, proof that humans are prone to creating mythical beliefs. That doesn't change the fact we're inventing them. My point was on the motivation for creating them: it's because some people are too arrogant to accept that the world is extremely complex and that we have a limited understanding of it and others use that arrogance to build institutions they can manipulate and control populations.

    People can be free to believe whatever bullshit they like in their private lives. It doesn't mean that governments should endorse that bullshit through tax breaks, extending freedom of religion to accepting child mutilation or endangerment on the basis of those beliefs, allowing religious institutions to be involved in healthcare, education etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,420 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    …or again, maybe its not actually arrogance, but more so, we dont like to not know, and like to nicely tie things up in stories, largely to reduce our anxieties in the unknown



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,250 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    It's widely accepted that Jesus existed as a real person:

    Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory. Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: his baptism and his crucifixion.

    Historical Jesus - Wikipedia



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,250 ✭✭✭MacDanger


    I think it might be the book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" where the author discusses the fact that humans' ability to believe in non-tangible constructs (such as gods/religion, nations, etc.) is something no other animal has and is one of the main things that allowed civilisation to develop - it allows us to feel a "connection" with people to whom we really have none and thereby work together for a common cause. As such, instead of existing only in extended family groups, humans were able to form larger villages, towns, cities etc. based on some intangible common bond



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭adaminho


    If Catherine of Aragon had produced a male heir there would be no Church of England and both would be Catholic countries.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,152 ✭✭✭Pauliedragon


    I think I read this before. What if you went back so stop a tragedy say 9/11 so you save 3000+lives. It turns out one of them is a madman who invents say Covid which kills 10s of thousands. Do you go back again to make sure 9/11 happens killing thousands of innocent people to make sure he dies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,345 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    Ulster was planted because it was the most gaelic province left and it was divide and conquer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    I would have retained the more liberal Church Ireland had before the Normans introduced the mainstream Catholic rules. We were sort of Catholic but did things our own way. Clergy married and had children, hence surnames like McAnespie (son of the bishop) and MacTaggart (son of the priest). The monks were more powerful in our system than the bishops. I think our later negative experience after independence with Church domination reflected the kind of Church introduced in 1169. I think the churches of the Reformation also inherited this intolerance.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    Have a read of Stephen Fry's novel "Making History" before you do anything drastic, lads.



Advertisement
Advertisement