>>12035315Well first of all time travel to time before time travel was invented might not be possible like
>>12035329 said, in fact the most plausible theoretical construct for time travel - wormhole that is - doesn't allow time travel to a period before its creation. But even without such restriction, time travel to the past might be incredibly costly or only accessible to civilizations advanced enough that they wouldn't be interested in visiting this period and time, or at least not interested enough for it to be worth it. So this particular argument while common isn't really a good argument against time travel at all. The only thing it rules out is something like easy time travel in the near future, where we can be pretty confident that should have people interested in going back to this era. But that's almost certainly not happening anyway, even without considering this argument. So it doesn't really change anything.
