• 71 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by NTM (7476 posts) -


#2 Edited by NTM (7476 posts) -

OK, so what I mean is, when you go into the past, and let’s say you’re 35, you don’t go 35 years into the past from now to when you were born, but 35 years into the past from when you were born. Or would you rather go into the future 35 years from now? So would you rather visit 1942, or 2047? Anyways, you get what I’m asking now I hope. Also, you can come back any time you’d like, but once you choose either the past or future, you can only go into the future, or the past, you can't go to one, then come back and try the other. I'd personally rather go to the future.

#3 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19367 posts) -

If I can come back any time I want, I'd rather see what's up with the future than the past. If I like what I see, heck, I might even stick around.

#4 Edited by Icemo (644 posts) -

Future seems more interesting because we don't know anything about it. Visiting past is also appealing but I would get bored there fast without modern technology.

#5 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

All you'd get in the past is a shitty World War. The future sounds more exciting.

#6 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6399 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

All you'd get in the past is a shitty World War. The future sounds more exciting.

You're telling me seeing the 1950's boom wouldn't be, at the very least, interesting?

#7 Posted by BonOrbitz (2212 posts) -

Definitely the future. However, I would like to experience the late 70's and early 80s at an age that's older then what I was at the time.

#8 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Future, maybe go see what it was like bac in ancient Egypt or ancient Rome.

#9 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -

I want to go to the future, see how long it is before we first encounter aliens. Its got to happen right.

#10 Posted by leebmx (2247 posts) -

Scary that you picked 35, exactly my age, I would have to say the future because it is the unknown, but it would be very interesting to see the WWII in full effect. Although I would have to watch out where I live London was getting squashed by bombs at the time.

btw I wouldn't do either if I had to stay there.

Actually thinking about it I would hope to live to 70 and see what is going to happen in 35years so I will pick 1942 instead. I'll join up and fight the evil hun, it'll be just like COD.

#11 Posted by Harkat (1104 posts) -

Future, but damn if I wouldn't want to live through the 90's and not be 4 years old.

#12 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@Ravenlight said:

All you'd get in the past is a shitty World War. The future sounds more exciting.

You're telling me seeing the 1950's boom wouldn't be, at the very least, interesting?

Yes. They had shitty robots in the '50s. The future has cooler robots.

#13 Posted by leebmx (2247 posts) -

If you are under 40 I hardly see the point in going forward in time - you'll be there soon enough. Why not go back, do a bit of research, and get really famous with your amazing future knowledge.

#14 Posted by RobotHamster (4175 posts) -

So for me it'll be 2033, which means we'll all be living in the metro.

#15 Edited by Toxeia (730 posts) -

@Icemo said:

Future seems more interesting because we don't know anything about it. Visiting past is also appealing but I would get bored there fast without modern technology.

For the most part I agree, but I'd LOVE to go to the past. While I've not the greatest knowledge of electricity and chemistry, I'd have enough to make a huge difference and bring man kind to the present much faster than had been done. It'd be interesting to see where we'd be if back in the 1500's there were already hydro-electric plants providing warmth and light to the masses; if steam was already providing transportation for goods and people at that time. These are the things I think of when I think of time travel. An ever increasing progress within the same period of time.

If I went to the future, I'd be the equivalent of a bumpkin with no true working knowledge of how things work. I'd be my father with a VCR. Everything would be flashing 12:00 for me which makes me infinitely sad.

#16 Posted by Coafi (1490 posts) -

I've always wanted to go to the past, visit myself as a child or even my relatives in their younger days. Sort of like in Back to the Future, but without altering any of it.

#17 Posted by believer258 (11984 posts) -

This won't change my answer, but are we just visiting or is this a one-way time hop?

Future, by the way. I can know the past via history books.

#18 Posted by hughesman (312 posts) -

@Ravenlight:

All you'd get in the past is a shitty World War. The future sounds more exciting.

Well, except for the possibility of even scarier world wars.

#19 Posted by Soapy86 (2632 posts) -

Unless you're super old this seems kind of pointless.

#20 Posted by TobbRobb (4732 posts) -

I really, really don't want to live in the seventies... Just no. The future might be cool, but I think there is enough stuff around at the moment. And it's more fun to see things develop then jump to the end.

#21 Posted by Turambar (6808 posts) -

With the guidelines, future.  Why would I want to travel to the 60s?

#22 Posted by Morrow (1829 posts) -

I'd love to live in that romaticised 18th/19th century you see in movies like Pride and Prejudice or Little Women.

#23 Posted by Sparklykiss (1973 posts) -
@RobotHamster

So for me it'll be 2033, which means we'll all be living in the metro.

In that case, I'd rather go back and take what I know with me to make some mad dolla dolla bills.
Moderator
#24 Posted by Management (596 posts) -

I would go 18 years into the future, read old sport results, travel back again and make some cold hard cash.

#25 Posted by Grillbar (1872 posts) -

can i be an asshole and say that you cant go in to the past or the future since what ever timeline you to to it will turn in to the present

#26 Posted by Omega (835 posts) -

This question reminds me of a Louis CK joke.

I still want to go into the future more than the past since we know the past but the future is not as easy to predict. Also you can't mess up the present by changing events in the future so I'll be able to go home after messing about in the future without consequence. The same cannot be said about the past.

#27 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

Visiting the future can be better or worse, depending on the how it turns out. Anyway, I'd like to check out WWII Europe, 1939 and join a resistance movement. That would be cool.

#28 Posted by NTM (7476 posts) -

@Harkat: Why? The 90's are poop. I was born 1990, and while I had fun when I was younger, if I think back at what happened in the 90's, it's very uninteresting.

#29 Posted by Nilazz (613 posts) -

Wouldn't surprise me if a trip into the future is a one way ticket to a post apocalyptic hell, so yeah, future it is!

#30 Edited by NTM (7476 posts) -

@Omega: Wait, how do you know the current house you live in now will be the one in the future? I don't think it can be, unless you lived with your parents and you say "no matter what, do not move, I'll be back in *insert amount of years*". Even then, it's not a sure thing.

#31 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

I know what happens in the past and in 1950's the world is pretty messed up. I would rater head into the future. It will still be messed up, but I don't know how, and that's half the fun.

#32 Posted by TEHMAXXORZ (1199 posts) -

The future. By then they'll have unlocked the secret to immortality.

#33 Edited by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -

Depends, would doing something in the past effect the present?

#34 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

375 (my birthday's coming up in the coming months) years from my birth? So I'd go back to 1262? Eh, I'd rather not. The Kingdoms were still warring at that time, so I wouldn't exactly feel safe.

#35 Posted by pyromagnestir (4326 posts) -

I can go to the future then use the holodeck technology to go whenever the fuck I please.

#36 Edited by Intro (1208 posts) -

18, the past for sure. I don't care about the 70s or anything like that.

I'm talking about times of the Mayans or during when the Egyptians built the Pyramids. I'd love to see the creation of things that we don't fully understand why and especially how they were built.

EDIT: Didn't read the thread, sorry. If it was only 35 years either way, I'd choose future.

#37 Posted by Omega (835 posts) -

@NTM: No I mean't home as in back to the present not home as in my current dwelling. Sorry for the confusion. Or is one of the rules that I have to stay in the future or past unable to return from whence I came? If that's the case I wouldn't go to the future or the past. I have friends and a life and an identity here. In the future or the past I'd have none of that. I'd likely starve to death as a homeless man because if I travelled through time I wouldn't have a social insurance number (social security number) and no permanent residence, things you'd need to be able to get a job.

Though if you could just visit the future/past then you could return to your own time and continue your life all the richer for the experience.

#38 Posted by Patman99 (1604 posts) -

If I could go 1000 or 2000 years in the past, I would. Then again, I would do the same if I could go that far forward.

#39 Edited by PenguinDust (12551 posts) -
Time travel will mess you up!

I have little desire to see depression era America (1934 for me). Hell, my grandmother was still a pre-teen so I can't even become my own grandpa. I'd pick the future. I hope to live long enough to see 2054. Flying cars and robot hookers. The future is going to be so sweet.

Unless you're going back at least 100 years, time traveling backwards seems silly. That Quantum Leap guy was always running into trouble.

#40 Edited by NTM (7476 posts) -

@Omega: No, that's fine, like I stated, I guess when you said home I was confused.

#41 Posted by NTM (7476 posts) -

@No0b0rAmA: You get to make that a rule for yourself, so ask yourself that.

#42 Posted by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -

@NTM said:

@No0b0rAmA: You get to make that a rule for yourself, so ask yourself that.

Assuming it's permanent, I'd go past. Assuming it's not, I'd still go to the past.

#43 Posted by tunaburn (1891 posts) -

really... would i go back in the past? to see amazing things like the vietnam war and hippies?

#44 Posted by JeanLuc (3590 posts) -

It would be interesting to see the past myself because it would before I was born but since I already know about the past I'd say the future.

#45 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

Hmm I don't know is between having fun (going to the past) or see cool stuff (going to the future) , If I go to the past I could take advantage of my knowledge of the future invest stock in some small companies like Facebook and get even with a few people when they least expected, predect some pretty accurate stuff and make some money in bets (cliche I know) but me traveling to the past might change the future and ruin my plans so I guess I'll rather see cool stuff since I know the future will have them for certain ... I think.

#46 Posted by Hunter5024 (5805 posts) -

Eventually I am going to go to the future anyways, so I would rather go back to 1970 and set some stuff up for myself to improve my life in the present, and make a more awesome future. Also I don't want to discover something terrible in the future and then not be sure whether or not I can change it because of fate and destiny and whatnot.

#47 Posted by forkboy (1162 posts) -

So as a 27 year old, I'd be down with going back to '57. I'd honestly rather just skip 7 years & hit 1964 though. That's roughly when music really started get interesting. Man I'd get to see a fuckload of awesome bands live. The Beatles, Stones, get to take in psychedelia in all its glory,bands like Jefferson Airplane, & awesome early Pink Floyd shows, punk as it happens, Black Sabbath in their prime, Zeppelin, Dead Kennedys before they fell out over money, so much potential for cool shit.

#48 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

All you'd get in the past is a shitty World War. The future sounds more exciting.

And all you'd get in the future is a shitty World War.

#49 Posted by Harkat (1104 posts) -

@NTM said:

@Harkat: Why? The 90's are poop. I was born 1990, and while I had fun when I was younger, if I think back at what happened in the 90's, it's very uninteresting.

The music dude. All that groundbreaking electronic music.

#50 Posted by Nightriff (5144 posts) -

I said stay here but after actually reading the question I would go into the past, easily. My music taste is 20 to 30 years before I was born and would've loved to live during that era and not the shitting "punk" wave that hit during my high school years from 03-07, that was tormenting.