"If it weren't for [famous person from long ago], we wouldn't have this now"

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 09:55:16

It's like they think discoveries and inventions are sealed and only the chosen ones can break their seals.

Chagen · 2011-04-12 09:58:48

But it may have been invented much later if it weren't for them, delaying the invention of things related to it. Imagine if computers were invented 20 years after they actually were. The invention of a huge amout of things that run modern society would be delayed heavily.

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 10:01:01

I guess I should've clarified that the "this" in the title is their specific invention/discovery.

Khwarizmi · 2011-04-12 10:51:33

Would you prefer it if they said "We might not have this now"? Or "this might not have been invented/discovered until much later"?

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 11:00:02

We might not have this now

If aplicable, yes.

"this might not have been invented/discovered until much later"

Yes.

Chagen · 2011-04-12 11:27:48

The "until much later" part usually is implied to be there. Humans are reasoning creatures. We do not have to be told everything in a statement.

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 11:35:47

Sometimes, maybe.

Sometimes, context makes it clear they're saying (without thinking it through) the discovery/invention could've only happened the way it did by the person who did it.

ninjaclown · 2011-04-12 11:41:44

Point is, if for some reason that person does not invent or discover the thing they were meant to does not mean eventually someone else won't. If Shakespeare never wrote, then the next guy to write fiction would become a world famous writer.

Gelzo · 2011-04-12 11:43:39

If it weren't for the untimely death of X, we'd have the technology for affordable personal jetpacks.

Chagen · 2011-04-12 11:47:45

I highly doubt we'll ever have portable and affordable jetpacks, given the amount of training that would be required to fly one well.

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 11:55:19

X would've solved that problem.

Chagen · 2011-04-12 12:10:12

In the end, it would inefficient. Jetpacks are simply an inefficient way of moving around.

Khwarizmi · 2011-04-12 13:20:28

Without Shakespeare, it is incredibly unlikely that we'd have the works of Shakespeare. We might have some similar stuff, but a playscript is far too complex for two people to invent the exact same one. It's Shakespeare's words that made him famous, not his plots.

Inb4 Deboss

Gelzo · 2011-04-12 14:20:35

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2212#comic

BaronGrackle · 2011-04-12 14:47:18

^^ Khwarmizmi took the words out of my metaphorical mouth. Shakespeare's an excellent example. Another example is the Rosetta Stone. If whichever French soldier hadn't recovered that artifact, and if no one else had recovered it before it was destroyed, then we'd know substantially less about Egyptian language today.

Bastion · 2011-04-12 19:27:37

OP: Have you read "Guns, Germs, and Steel"? It includes (among many other things, of course) a pretty extensive argument for great inventions owing more to the cultural circumstances than to individual genius. You may find some of its points useful if you need to convince someone.

Stormtroper · 2011-04-12 22:47:07

Naturally, this doesn't apply to very specific "inventions" such as Shakespeare's works.

But the Rosetta Stone's discovery is a very good exception, thank you for pointing it out.

^ I'd point out what's wrong with their specific individual, instead. Still, the book sounds interesting, I'll read it someday.

Deboss · 2011-04-13 01:39:24

Inb4 Deboss

CURSES! I shall have to go home and twiddle my WhiplashStache in failure now that someone has beaten me to this thread. Curses.

On the original topic, it's just something that people say because they like to think that individuals are important.