Hey guys I'm currently at work, and i felt like starting a topic that i find entertaining. I would like to hear your opinions in regards to, who you think is the man and woman of the 20th century and give a brief description why.

Personally i believe that Helen Keller is the most was a name that should be remembered, she went through so much during her life, being deaf, dumb, and mute. Near the end of her life she decided to build a school for people with the same problems as her, to allow them to have a better life. I personally believe that that action alone should give her the title Woman of the 20th century.

Now for the man of the 20th century, i personally believe that Winston Churchill, who was a great British politician. He was also an officer of the British army. His speeches gave inspiration to the Allied Forces.

Let me know what you guys think.
Take care, gotta head get back to doing some work

Personally, I think Nikola Tesla,who was responsible for so many brilliant inventions,including Electricity.The whole world benefits from this Genius.Imagine a World with no AC Electricity. Here is a link. One of hundreds on the Net.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

I would vote for Henry Ford, he invented the assembly line. Which makes it possible for us to get all these neat toys so fast and cheap(?). Just think how the world would be if we had no assembly lines in manufacturing....

Sorry, but Tesla didn't "invent" electricity. Neither did anyone else.

you are correct MattV, but he is responsible for the development and use of AC electric current generators for long distance power transmition.


Seafox14

Wow, it's so hard to choose! So many incredible inventions and developments that affect us each day yet we rarely give a second thought to now.

So, so many 'inventions' re health ... Alexander Fleming who discovered penicillin (depending on who's making the claim) ... both Frederick Banting and Charles Best, co-developers of insulin.

And while I love the ambiance of candles, would have to vote for Joseph Swan/Thomas Edison and the invention of the light bulb.

(Egad Think we all know that when we say 'invented' we often are referring to a 'development or making use of' something', as in Tesla
and electricity - huge gentle smile).

For woman of the century, it's a toss-up between Eleanor Roosevelt and Coretta King.

Man of the century is hard, but I would bestow the honor upon Stephen Hawking.

Tommy Cooper. Though he didnt do anything "great" or "ingenious" as such he spread laughter to all ages. This world needs more laughter in my opinion.

Thomas Edison, many inventions and just his attitude and perseverance.
Pamela Anderson

The man who invented duct tape.


Aretha Franklin.

Winston is a cowardly excuse for a human being.

OK, I know Aretha Fraklin ain't no man, and I'm pretty sure she didnt' invent Duct Tape...

Why do you think this?

I don't see the point to this thread. No matter how important any persons action in the twentieth century may be, it is no where near as important to things that were done well before that.

I personally feel that Sir Isaac Newton's derivation of almost all of calculus is infinitely more important than any thing done in the 20th century and anything that will ever be done.

There are only two things, that if ever developed, could change my mind, and that is only because of the significance that they would impact all aspects of human life, including but not limited to our view of a God figure and the way that we view the universe.

These two things would be utilization of worm holes to travel long distances in no time, and discovery of time travel.

So because there have been no "monumental" discoveries of late compared to those of old it makes those discoveries we have made worthless? I think thats doing a discredit to those who have made discoveries or just generally good people themselves.

As for the two things you have listed, while I agree they would be huge achievements and yes they would greatly affect all of human kind I think you are being abit narrowminded there.

I could list quite a few discoveries that could be classed as "great". Off the top of my head, a cure for cancers. Surely something that saves millions of lives must be worth your recognition? In my opinion, anything that would save a single life is considered a great achievement. And whose to say that it has to be limited to inventions. Anyone could be considered not just scientists.

But then these are just my opinions and those are yours...

Athelos, I'm glad you mentioned that we have different opinions.

My original post was actually a product of another opinion. I just don't feel like saving lives is that important. I guess a cure for cancer would be ok, but most people(that i know of) die at fairly old age due to cancer. Like I had a grandpa that died at age 68 due to pancreatic cancer, so I think that age is actually an underlying cause to cancer, while I may be wrong. I just don't feel that improving the quality of life for a select group of individuals, like cancer patients, is as important when compared to discoveries or inventions that have shaped our knowledge of everything.

so I think that age is actually an underlying cause to cancer, while I may be wrong

Dead wrong, try googling "child cancer".

I just don't feel like saving lives is that important.

That says a lot.

I just don't feel that improving the quality of life for a select group of individuals, like cancer patients, is as important when compared to discoveries or inventions that have shaped our knowledge of everything.

What good are the discoveries you mention if they don't improve your quality of life? Perhaps you are only interested in things that you think would improve the quality of your life. This also says a lot.

I agree. For instance, where would we be if Al Bore hadn't come along to invent the Internet and "global warming".

Seriously, almost all major new discoveries or invention's wouldn't be possible if the groundwork hadn't been laid by people before them. Could Newton have done his work if someone before him hadn't discovered the fundamental rules of math? And this holds true in nearly every field of human endeavor. The authors of our constitution were nothing more than a handful of farmers and craftsmen. Yet their ideas changed the entire world.

I can think of numerous monumental discoveries of the Twentieth Century. Two that come to mind would be the discoveries of penicillin, and of the most destructive weapons in the history of humanity. There are more.

All I can say is - right on.

The most important man and woman in history would be the caveman that tamed fire, and the cavewoman that learned to cook with it.

I guess that I may have come off as not caring about human life, but that is not the case.

I just feel that if the human race survives much longer into history, people may think like this:

"Penicilin? Penicilin?!!! Yeah, that was useful for about a minute."

"Newtonian Physics and Calculus!!! Oh, yeah, that's really important."

And I will try to rephrase why I don't think that curing cancer is that important. If someone gets their cancer cured, they still may be close to death, and they will still die. Curing their cancer didn't make a big difference to them. However, innovations in Calculus and Physics have made things that you now take for granted possible. Some discoveries have unfathomably changed the course of humanity, and I just don't think curing cancer would do that.

On the other hand,

the person cured of cancer

may be the one who comes up with the next great scientific discovery.

John Who,

That is a good point. I actually cannot argue with it.

You have little to no experience with the real world, have you? I know plenty of people that have recovered from cancer and lead useful, fulfilling lives. Cancer is not limited to geriatric cases, and a lot of it can be cured, now, if detected early enough and treated properly and immediately. I knew one young lady that developed, and was cured of, cancer at the age of nineteen. A retired friend of mine was cured of cancer a couple of years ago and now devotes his time to helping others recover from their maladies. And I doubt that the doctors and researchers that have developed, and are working on, cures and treatments for once-fatal diseases don't really care about Newtonian physics. And a theoretical physicist would quickly become lost in the world of cellular biology.

All discoveries made and the creations that those discoveries led to, combined, have resulted in the marvels that most of us take for granted. And more of these marvels than most people would care to know about or admit came from military research.

Now let's address some other concerns. How would you use calculus to feed a population? How many new jobs that would allow people to become contributors to society will calculus create? How much calculus does one need to know to clear the roads after a heavy snowfall? I know people that build houses from the cellar-hole up that don't know any calculus at all! Is calculus a prerequisite to having the fender you bunged up fixed? I'm sure the guy that comes and pumps out your septic tank is a wizard at calculus. (He could be, actually.) How much calculus does a firefighter need to know? If your house was burning, would you turn away the firefighters that had never learned any calculus? Good luck with your smoking rubble.

Come back from orbit and take a good look around. There are many ills of modern society for which calculus would be worth nothing in addressing. And what good will your warp drive be to a society not healthy enough to use it?

I will admit that my views have been a bit narrow, and that I have been wrong about the value of saving lives.

So, now, I would like to turn to another aspect of the conversation. Is it acceptable, and can a discovery be considered great, if a few people are hurt, tortured, even killed to make a great discovery that will save many people's lives and definitely improve the quality of life?

Because this is exactly what the Nazis did. Dr. Sigmund Rascher, under authority of the Nazis, performed experiments on Jews at Aushwitz (spelling?) that led to the discovery of everything that we now know about hypothermia. Our current knowledge of hypothermia has undoubtedly saved many lives. We would still know very little about the effects of exposure to the cold without these valuable experiments. Can you really deny that Rascher did a great thing for medical science, regardless of how you feel about the Jews and the Holocaust?

So, could he be the man of the 20th century?

Please tell me you are kidding?

Please...

lol.

I think death-row inmates should be used for medical research.

I don't believe in the death penalty. I think there is too good a chance to execute innocent victims (since it has already happened). I also dont think that we as people have the right to kill people, no justification. But we should probably stay away from capital punishment, because it will definitely get us off topic. you should start another thread if you want to debate that.

Now I usually go by the philosophy of, "the end justifies the means" but I've found from personal experience that life is never as simple as that.

I'm not going to pretend to know things I dont know. I dont know Dr. Rascher and until now have never heard of him. If what you are saying is true, then yes maybe in a twisted way he could be seen as the a candidate for man of the century for the thing he has achieved. But then I also believe in another saying, "theres more than one way to skin a cat." The way he supposedly achieved this "acomplishment" was disgusting and wrong on so many levels that he is more likely to be percieved as one of the villians of the century.

I think for a person to be truely great they will need to uphold good ethics and morales... Something that this man seemed to have extremely little of.

So if i am reading you last couple of posts right the one above and this one from earlier



do you actually know what you are saying?



seriously millions of people died due to the nazi's,How can you justify that and condemn the death penalty?
The jewish people were innocent as for people on death row 99.9% of the time they are guilty.
And as for understanding hypothermia ,well i personally do not think that was the method of doing it as i believe for the price paid the knowledge was'nt worth it and as for Rascher being man of the 20th century.
Tell me how you would feel if it was your family,he had killed in the name of science.

MZ30

I also condemn the Holocaust. I was simply asking if for what he achieved, if Rascher should be commended, or condemned. I never said that I believed that he should be the man of the year. And, so you know, he did not kill all the Jews with his experiments, so don't act like his discovery couldn't have been made with out killing millions of Jews. He probably could have accomplished by only killing about 100.

I don't know that I've every read any post that has had the ability to make me so sick at my stomach!
Hypothermia, body temp. falls too low and is not brought back correctly to the proper temp. you die, Wow that's a tough one to figure out.
I think you need to get your dictionary out and look up the word humanity and keep reading it until you reach an age that you can understand what it truly means.

If this is considered out of line on my part so be it, I make no apology for what is my opinion.

Would you have volunteered to be one of that 100?

How can you possibly make a distinction between gassing the Holocaust victims and freezing them to death. This wasn't a clinical study, these people where murdered just to see what made them tick, that is not science! I suppose that you would like to see Joseph Mengele recognized for his contributions to the field of pediatrics as well.

Hate to be harsh, but even suggesting that the man be recommended as "the man of the century" is sick. Just do a little bit of research about people....seriously, just a little. You will find the man indulged in the killings. He loved every second of it. I even read some articles that alleged he used skin fragments to make a saddle. Some of the "experiments" included throwing the humans in ice water, then boiling them as a means to thaw. I don't know how anyone with a concern for their fellow man could think this is a reasonable scientific experiment. Bottom line: The man loved blood and death, and took pleasure in the killings of the jewish people. He was rightly put to death by his own people. Also, good luck finding a modern scientist that doesn't deem his data completely useless and founded on faulty experiments.

I can see this thread going completely in a bad direction....lets see if we can save it?

Personally, I don't go much on the Topic Title, as so many People have contributed greatly,in their own chosen fields.
I believe this question can never be answered.From all their collective Discoveries and Inventions,we now can enjoy the fruits of their labour.

ok

um, let me think. Since I am a human being like everyone else, I'm pretty sure that my number one goal at all times is survival. And survival would never take a back seat to a scientific discovery. So, NO.

In that case, it's too bad that 100 plus people didn't get that choice. They, and their families, since they were human beings, most likely also would have chosen to survive.

You've answered your own question - he should be condemned.

Anyone considering him for commendation should be ashamed, in my opinion.

Well, that is your opinion. Some people would say that killing a few people to save many is worth it. I mean, Truman used nuclear weaponry on Japan because he knew it would make Japan surrender, thereby actually saving lives because it ended the war more quickly. He is considered one of our "good" presidents. Would you be ashamed to commend him? (lol. this is just an aside, but just think, we luv Truman for ending the war, but try to impeach clinton for having sex). Actually, I guess from your logic, you do condemn Truman.

Another over-simplification that shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of life.


I believe Truman made the difficult, but right, War-time decision which he based on the best information he had at the time. Using "20/20 hindsight", it was most likely the wrong decision. There continues to be debate on this.


Comparing that to one who would use you as an involuntary lab rat, seems overly naive to me.


BTW - Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice, not for having sex. You really need to get your facts straight instead of believing what the left-wing media feeds you.

No. The use of nuclear weapons during the Second World War was done as a demonstration of power. And it was a bluff. It was hoped that the Emperor would bow before America's awesome might and surrender. Fortunately, the bluff worked. If, instead, the Japanese had called his bluff, telling him that he could destroy every city in Japan and the Japanese people would still not surrender, Truman would have been screwed, since we didn't have any more A-bombs, nor the ability to manufacture more of them quickly.

And the only reason that there continues to be debate is that people - some historians included - see only the results of the bombings, and not the reasons behind them.

The estimates of casualties that an invasion of Japan would have engendered range from a half-million to over a million American casualties alone, with several times those numbers of Japanese casualties. The numbers were predicated on the known strengths of the Japanese military forces in the islands, and on the assumption that an invasion would meet resistance not only from military forces, but from civilians, as well. In fact, since the people developing casualty estimates had no experience of the type of guerrilla warfare that was used so successfully by the Vietnamese, the estimates were probably lower than the numbers of casualties on both sides that an invasion would have generated.

CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS is a rather lengthy and detailed analysis of the history of how the US develops casualty estimates, and how the predictions for the invasion of Japan were developed.

This is a very brief overview of casualty estimates:

Estimated Casualties - from Wikipedia article

Although there were other factors involved in the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan, if one can put moral indignation aside and look at the decision based on casualty figures alone, then an invasion of Japan would have resulted in casualty numbers for both sides that would have been far in excess of the casualties resultant of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yeah, I recognize all that, and agree that at the time it was an option that made sense.

However, once we went "Godzilla" on Toyko, Japan's leaders might have acted differently. We'll never know.

What we do know is that the US is the only country to have actually used an "atomic" bomb, and this will no doubt always be a controversial issue.

Back to topic:

I think George Lucas is the man of the 20th century (at least in America). I think his ideas have molded much of the movie, book, and other entertainment businesses. And let's face it, here in America, people love to be entertained.

Simply because there are a lot of people that don't let trivial little things like facts get in their way. Personally, I believe a lot of the BS going on around us today could be stopped with a few surgical nuke strikes. Though we'd probably have to carpet-nuke California.

Personally I feel this is not even a legitimate comparison. Except one may argue that neither was doing actual medical research,Truman and the Bomb or Rascher and Mengele. But the reference that both killed many for the better of mankind is silly. Truman's did work,bluff or not and that was it's intenetion. Brutality and inhumane acts of torture were neither needed nor being done as research to benefit mankind. They were researching more ways to kill people. The consequenses of what happened to theses Jews was not even a factor. Whereas Mr Truman knew and suffered in his conscience the result of such an action.

"Brutality and inhumane acts of torture were neither needed nor being done as research to benefit mankind. They were researching more ways to kill people. "


Actually you are wrong. Whether you believe it was a good way to go about things or not, Rascher actually was doing research on the Jews. I'm not disputing that it was extremely cruel, and possibly not needed. But he was trying to find out what happened to the body when exposed to cold, in order to better prepare German troops in cold climates like Russia.

Ok yes in that instance it was a form of research. But still there is no comparison to Truman's action. One is to end all the killing and not an experiment. The other is to keep killing, no?