I was watching a show on the Science Channel last night, and a scientist made the following statement:
Contact with an alien intelligence would change the future history of our society.
Now, I understood immediately what he meant, and maybe that's all that counts in any language. Still, the term future history struck me as somewhat incongruous. I Googled the term, and came up with several websites dealing with predictions for the future, but nothing addressing the term itself.
I don't think I'd call it an oxymoron, and I don't think I'd use the term myself, preferring to replace it with evolution or perhaps just future. But I'm wondering what other forum members think about that term. Is it logically inconsistent? Am I being too critical? Like I said, I knew what he meant.
Excuse the tangent - 'change history' is obviously oxymoronic. 'Shape history' would be better, but there's no arguing against natural selection.
If today is tomorrow's yesterday (future history) then we really can change future history. We can decide what we are going to do today then change our mind. Ha!
I like word games and it seems to me that this is one, but if I'm serious about making a point games are out.
I like future history as coined in this context. Any future event can change the course of civilization, even seeming trivial ones. But this phrase implies that such an event would be of so great, obvious, and lasting significance that it would immediately and forever be discussed as a turning point in history.
Excuse the petulent tone if this sounds that way-- how so that the phrase implies all that?