What three books would you take?

[Ivan Seeking]

In The Time Machine, by HG Wells, George took three books with him when he returned to join Weena and the Eloi, to help rebuild civilization in the distant future.

If you were in his position, which three books would you have taken?

 

[stargazer3]

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in three copies, purely from fear of being moved in time but not in space. Oh, and I'll try to get a spacesuit along too, if possible. And a towel, of course, yes.

edit: oh, the irony, I have 42 posts at the moment

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm guessing civ is pretty bad. Thinking apocalypse style, so we need to think practical.

(We need to be able to build things) Back to Basics: A Complete Guide to Traditional Skills
(We need a new moral code) Philosophy For Dummies
(We need effective leaders) The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership

 

[WannabeNewton]

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley, 1984 - George Orwell, A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess

I'll rebuild the civilization off the cuff if I have to, I just can't live without having those 3 books to read :p

 

[micromass]

Brave New World - Aldous Huxley, 1984 - George Orwell, A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess

You're going to model your society after those three books?? Not sure I want to live there...

 

[mateomy]

I used to watch the 1960's 'Time Machine' with my brother and Dad when we were small (before I was interested enough to actually read it), and he used to pose that question to us after we'd finish it. I never could come up with a definitive list, but here's to another transient shot;

1) Feynman Lectures Vol. 1 (I know this sounds cheesy being on PhysicsForums and all, but it makes sense when you think about how child-like the Eloi were).

2) The complete works of Shakespeare

3) David Hume's 'A Treatise of Human Nature'

(I would also try to slip a copy of 'The Hobbit' past whomever would be trying to enforce this simply for that fact that I love that book.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
2. Steam, by Babcock and Wilcox
3. To Serve Morlock.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
2. Steam, by Babcock and Wilcox
3. To Serve Morlock.

As an option to your third choice, , I was thinking of something like a physicians handbook, or some bible of pharmaceuticals and their use. But then a good book on classical dynamics would be useful, as would a book on materials science.

 

[Enigman]

Complete works of A.C. Doyle
Einstein's ideas and opinions
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

 

[turbo]

Innocents Abroad, by Clemens would have to be the top choice. Insightful and entertaining.

 

[Enigman]

This reminded me of this thread...

 

[arildno]

Probably "The Lord of the Rings"
Others can make the civilization around me.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

For the practical - The Knowledge: how to rebuild our world from scratch
For the political - Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making
For the aspirational - The Player of Games

 

[jim hardy]

Mark's Mechanical Engineer's Handbook
CRC Handbook of Chemistry
Asimov's "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man"

 

[Algr]

Cosmos, by Carl Sagan
Wikipedia.
Understanding Comics: By Scott McCloud.

 

[Digitalism]

I'm a big believer in the idea that as long as you preserve the math the rest can be rebuilt from scratch over time. So maybe a nice math overview or focus on analysis like Tao's, Something more general going over the entire development of it like Penroses's The Road to Reality or A Brief History of Nearly Everything to get an idea of what we have to rebuild, and lastly a practical guide for survival and building the basics of society back like a survivalist guide of some kind.

 

[Tribo]

What a loaded question. A thorough dictionary, for starters. Preferably NW's 1828 or 1913 with an added section for the words complied since then.

 

[Jupiter5]

Jules Verne all books

 

[HuskyNamedNala]

"The complete worst case scenario survival guide"
"50 Shades of Gray"
"Fluid Mechanics" by Granger

 

[Durakken]

"For them; The Living" by Robert A. Heinlein
"On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill
"The Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchett

 

[micromass]

"50 Shades of Gray"

Are you being serious?

 

[nsaspook]

Going back to a world of Morlock cannibals.

"Basic blacksmithing" David harries
"Basic gunsmithing" John Traister
The Art of War Sun Tzu, any good translation

 

[HuskyNamedNala]

Well, it was between 50 Shades and Twilight. I figure since I have no chance with Kristen Stewart, 50 Shades would jumpstart my marketability as a mate in this post apacolyptic world.

 

[Curly_810]

Einsteins special and General relativity - because it would help in the future either this or a a compilation of physics
Collins dictionary - if I was in the situation in the time machine then I'd want to educate the habitant
Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

 

[Evo]

The works of Zenna Henderson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenna_Henderson

 

[Algr]

It might be interesting to turn this on it's head. If you wanted to prevent a rival civilization from advancing, what three books would you give them?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

1. Catalog listing detail of the 158 million books in the Library of Congress
2. All 15 petabytes of the Internet Archive
3. The Harry Potter series

"50 Shades of Gray"

If you want some good spankings, why not get a husband instead?

It might be interesting to turn this on it's head. If you wanted to prevent a rival civilization from advancing, what three books would you give them?

If I were to be honest, that would probably end up being against PF rules to write...

 

[micromass]

It might be interesting to turn this on it's head. If you wanted to prevent a rival civilization from advancing, what three books would you give them?

Stewart Calculus

 

[Battlemage!]

I think morals/ethics are ingrained into our instincts, so no need to waste a book on that. As for politics in the free world, each of us should have enough information in our memories to set a good ground work to build a political structure upon, so no need for that. We would DEFINITELY need a comprehensive chemistry book, because there is just too much utility with chemistry. Since this is a physics forum, most of us might be able to forgo bringing a physics or math book. Granted, much will be lost, but there should be enough knowledge to lay a foundation for many things to be rediscovered.

We would want some book detailing biology, especially edible plants and the basics of the biological sciences. Again, we'd need a groundwork from which other things could be rediscovered. I would presume the future society knows how to survive to a degree, so perhaps it can focus more on the theoretical aspects of biology. In fact, maybe a medicine-based biology book would be better.

Finally, a book that details the history of technology or gives a survey of technology, but written for experts so that there is enough detail to give hints on how to rediscover much of it. I don't know if such a book exists, but it would be very useful. Something that covers the basics of mass farming to the basics of machinery to the basics of computers. An engineering book perhaps, but one that touches on everything.That's my take. No need for religion, ethics or politics, since basic human instinct and reason can recreate much of that much faster than it can technological achievements.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

In order to be equally considerate, I would take To Serve Man as one of my choices.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It might be interesting to turn this on it's head. If you wanted to prevent a rival civilization from advancing, what three books would you give them?

The Little Red Book
Physics, by Aristiotle
TV Guide

 

[Algr]

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx.
The Art of the Deal, "by" Donald Trump

That should kill everyone nicely.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I think morals/ethics are ingrained into our instincts, so no need to waste a book on that.

No way can they be instinctive, have you looked outside of your window lately? Ethics and morals are learned, starting from birth- they are beliefs. They are learned from others around us (schools, family, friends, people, communities, social systems, culture, religion, country, etc.) and through personal experience or observation. No one person has the same set of ethics or morals, and they change over time. Human instinct and reason, without those learned ethics and morals, might surprise you in the absence of real consequences.

As it is, there are many, many people in the world that would kill you for your resources, if they could get away with it. There are some that would do it just for fun, if they could get away with it. Aside from humans in considering the animal kingdom, killing, raping, or stealing isn't actually wrong, it's natural or instinctive- you know? Some of the most saintly people we know today are actually condemning others for their religion, that's no different than wanting them dead. In the absence of consequences, from law or social reactions, many people would quickly violate others, even using children for work and sex. Look out your window, please.

The Art of the Deal, "by" Donald Trump

From, A Child's First Book of Trump, by Michael Black:
The[/PLAIN] beasty is called an American Trump.
Its skin is bright orange, its figure is plump.
Its fur so complex you might get enveloped.
Its hands though are, sadly, underdeveloped. [PLAIN]http://www.simonandschuster....Book-of-Trump/Michael-Ian-Black/9781481488006[/PLAIN]

I would love to agitate my Husband by getting this for our little girl and having her read it to him out of the blue one day! I probably won't do it though.

 

[1oldman2]

To Serve Man

The Twilight zone story? excellent choice.

 

[Battlemage!]

No way can they be instinctive, have you looked outside of your window lately? Ethics and morals are learned, starting from birth- they are beliefs. They are learned from others around us (schools, family, friends, people, communities, social systems, culture, religion, country, etc.) and through personal experience or observation. No one person has the same set of ethics or morals, and they change over time. Human instinct and reason, without those learned ethics and morals, might surprise you in the absence of real consequences.

As it is, there are many, many people in the world that would kill you for your resources, if they could get away with it. There are some that would do it just for fun, if they could get away with it. Aside from humans in considering the animal kingdom, killing, raping, or stealing isn't actually wrong, it's natural or instinctive- you know? Some of the most saintly people we know today are actually condemning others for their religion, that's no different than wanting them dead. In the absence of consequences, from law or social reactions, many people would quickly violate others, even using children for work and sex. Look out your window, please.

From, A Child's First Book of Trump, by Michael Black:
The[/PLAIN] beasty is called an American Trump.
Its skin is bright orange, its figure is plump.
Its fur so complex you might get enveloped.
Its hands though are, sadly, underdeveloped.

I would love to agitate my Husband by getting this for our little girl and having her read it to him out of the blue one day! I probably won't do it though.

I disagree on this. Specific sets of morality rules are not universal, but a base line of morality is.

Every society on the planet has a "do not illegally kill" law. Many of them disagree on what constitutes legal and illegal killing, but you will find none without a murder law, rule or taboo. There is no society on the planet where people can kill whomever they want (no society with that trait could survive).

Every society on the planet has a "do not take what does not belong to you" law. Many of them disagree on what constitutes property, but all of them have some form of an anti-stealing law.

I could go on and on with this.Now why? Because of natural selection. Kin selection, for example. We instinctively want to protect our children. That is NOT a learned behavior (in fact we share it with most mammals). We instinctively communicate and cooperate with other humans (this is how we have survived the multiple evolutionary changes from our common ancestor with the other Great Apes, and even since before that). Because of these instinctual traits (along with many other unique biological properties our species shares, from our brains to our hands), we always, without fail, will develop social groups. These social groups will always involve some level of cooperation, or they will disappear (and have, no doubt; yet again, more natural selection). Due to the natural inclination for human beings to have complex language (another trait we are born with), these groups will always involve communication of abstract thoughts. But of course, there is no need for abstract ideas for there to be anti-theft rules. Other species have them too! They just aren't verbally communicated. But I digress.

The human brain is equipped with certain traits that automatically lend themselves to behaviors which enable morality rules to develop. Human behavior is certainly complex, but form society to society, it isn't the broad picture of morality that changes, it's the fine details of morality. Who counts as a full human. What counts as property. Etc. Take rape, for example. Is rape universally agreed to be wrong? In our society, a man who forces his wife to have sex has committed rape. In a Fundamentalist Muslim society he has not. Nevertheless, if the same man rapes a woman he is not married to, he is still accused of the crime (although he may not be found guilty). Do we have one society that considers rape wrong and one society that doesn't? No. We have two societies that consider rape wrong, but disagree on the definition of rape. Here are some peer reviewed studies and other non-peer reviewed literature on this:

http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~bowles/UniversalMoralGrammar.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/