Seska, I read it about 3 years ago, but just did a brush-up on wikipedia. Were you debating the stop Hitler from being born issue?

DebetEsse: Not exactly. I was interested in whether The Girl would choose to live in a world where homosexuality was outlawed* or one where the Holocaust had happened. Given that the former would affect us directly, but probably mean there was/would have been a lot less suffering in the world. Then we got talking about why she preferred studying meta-ethics rather than straightforward ethics (she was a philosophy major), on account of how these concepts are pretty much impossible to explore.

I was more taken with the the more personal storyline, though - the idea of 'the one' being stuck in another quantum universe from you. I don't believe in the modern romanticised concept of 'the one', but that storyline summed up the potential total loneliness of believing in destiny, for me. I thought that was fascinating.

*And then we got talking about how it is in some societies, and how lucky we are to live when and where we do.

Ah, so not a direct thing in the book. Sort of a "needs of the many" sort of situation, really. Well, that and an "us" group vs. a "them" group (insofar as the effects are not immediately on you)

I like your take on the other. It does seem odd to put your romantic happiness in the hands of something so delicate as quantum uncertainty, if you will. That is, conditions being just right not only for the person to genetically exist, but to have had the right experiences to be the person they're "supposed" to be.

I've never heard of this town, but here's an article on the Canadian version of Hay-on-Wye--Sidney, British Columbia.

Well, that and an "us" group vs. a "them" group (insofar as the effects are not immediately on you)

This was mostly where we went with it. The ethics of asking another person or people to suffer instead of you. It seems very noble to say that you couldn't do this, as The Girl was saying she couldn't, but I think you'd have to be in this situation before you could know what you'd actually do. Interesting to discuss.

I also wondered whether the book was subtly condoning the swapping of your difficulties for the suffering of others. As much as Michael claimed he was concerned that he had created a universe where the Nazis caused even worse suffering, I wondered if this was a bit of self-delusion in terms of motive, and whether his own comfort was the real reason he wanted things back the way they were before. The book doesn't address that ethical problem directly, but I think it's a possible interpretation.

But, since they weren't in conflict his own interests and those of the wider world were in agreement, so it's just an additional spur, rather than a complicating factor. It was certainly the more pressing factor for him, but the personal is going to be a better spur.

I agree that yours is the more interesting question. In most fiction, it's phrased more like that Trek episode, where it's "let this one person you like die to SAVE THE WORLD," rather than "the suffering of a group of which you are a member or the suffering of another group"--And it gets even more interesting when you start looking at how equal or not those sufferings are.

That question, actually, now that I think about it, does have very real-world consequences, unlike the purely hypothetical "would you kill Hitler" kind of question. In realistic terms, even public policies with wide upsides have downsides for some group, at least. How do you balance those concerns fairly?

For what it's worth, I wouldn't kill Hitler, I'd kill Goering and a couple of other gung-ho supporters.

I should check and see if I have family in Sidney so have a built-in excuse to go.

(I mean, Dad *WAS* born in Duncan. Which isn't THAT far from there.)

In realistic terms, even public policies with wide upsides have downsides for some group, at least. How do you balance those concerns fairly?

That's where it gets really interesting. Especially if you're a social justice campaigner, like me. It costs society something to create equality for disabled people - different kinds of costs, but usually one kind or other. I don't know whether we consider this enough in my campaign groups. It's not a huge concern, but it's one we should consider from time to time. And maybe it should be influencing the directions in which we focus our campaigning, so that we're asking for things which benefit more groups than just us. Some of the time, anyway.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't kill Hitler, I'd kill Goering and a couple of other gung-ho supporters.

Re: the book - that's pretty much its conclusion. That one person's death didn't change much, since others came in to fill his place, and that the success of the Nazi party wasn't dependent on one person. This fits with the 'destiny' theme of the book, but perhaps it should have been obvious to the characters from a bit of reading of history. Except that then, no story. So never mind.

I mean, Dad *WAS* born in Duncan

As was my Aunt!