Science in an Authoritarian World?

So, this has been on my mind for the past few weeks.

A lot of the technology we take for granted is a result of our society and our culture. Personal computers, mobile phones, the Internet, cheap international/intercontinental travel, the vast array of foods and media accessible etc.

Much of what we have is a result of living in a world with a reasonably high degree of freedom, democracy and openness between major economic countries. However, going back to 1900 there was no guarantee that the 20th century would turn out the way it did. The 2 World Wars shaped the nature of governments globally and set us on this path.

So my question is, in a world where Authoritarianism is the defacto position of most major world governments (could be Fascistic, could be Communistic, could be something complete new we've never encountered), how does science and technology evolve? No, it doesn't have to be Nazi/Soviet based world. Anything with a POD after 1900 works, possibly we see rise of more Mussolini and Franco style dictatorships across Europe and the World after a major economic collapse.

The requirement of said governments should be the emphasis of controlling the population, either to remain in power and/or to keep the nation secure from external threats (probably other Authoritarian powers).

The laws of science are one of the few constants in the universe, the question is how are they used?

We can expect little in the way of home computer devices, and definitely no equivalent of the Internet. Perhaps major nations have massive offline computer banks that are used to control and process massive amounts of data to maintain order.

Any thoughts?

An authoritarian rule does not necessary mean a lack of technological advance.
Pre ww1 Germany for example combined a relatively conservative society with a firm believe in technological progress. (I know that Germany was rapidly becoming more democratic in the years leading up to ww1, but still.)

The main difference would probably be the use of technology, not it's availability.

Well a lot depends on how the authorities treat the minorities, remember the Germans lost a lot of potential in WW2 by making things so difficult for the Jews beforehand that many, including some prominent scientists emigrated. How the authorities view scientific development will be another big factor.

"We can expect little in the way of home computer devices, and definitely no equivalent of the Internet."

There is no shortage of PCs and internet users in China, so I think your premise is too simplistic. There is greater control of internet usage in authoritarian states such as China than in the west, but there is unquestionably widespread use of the internet, mobile phones etc.

Science is more likely to be influenced or even subverted by the diktats of authoritarian regimes, but it happens in the 'free' west as well.

"Perhaps major nations have massive offline computer banks that are used to control and process massive amounts of data to maintain order"

Isn't that basically the modus operandi of the NSA, Homeland Security, GCHQ etc?

De von Of said:

An authoritarian rule does not necessary mean a lack of technological advance.
Pre ww1 Germany for example combined a relatively conservative society with a firm believe in technological progress. (I know that Germany was rapidly becoming more democratic in the years leading up to ww1, but still.)

The main difference would probably be the use of technology, not it's availability.

Click to expand...

This is my point, how does it get used? Home computers is evolution of technology due to an open market. What happens if there is no open market? Given that Brazil still manufactures the N64 games console and newer consoles are basically entirely controlled by a pirate market, if there is no external market developing 'world technologies' how does this affect things?

MattII said:

Well a lot depends on how the authorities treat the minorities, remember the Germans lost a lot of potential in WW2 by making things so difficult for the Jews beforehand that many, including some prominent scientists emigrated. How the authorities view scientific development will be another big factor.

Click to expand...

Very true. Persecuted minorities and a lack of any concepts they might bring due to their creativity and different ways of thinking will definitely stifle development.

dropbearabroad said:

"We can expect little in the way of home computer devices, and definitely no equivalent of the Internet."

There is no shortage of PCs and internet users in China, so I think your premise is too simplistic. There is greater control of internet usage in authoritarian states such as China than in the west, but there is unquestionably widespread use of the internet, mobile phones etc.

Click to expand...

They use it, they didn't INVENT it. Without more 'Free' states to start the initial creation these things don't get made. Would China have realistically developed 'A Computer for Every Home' if such things didn't already exist in the market place?

Compare the rise of computing technology in the US to the USSR. If there is no nation to pioneer a 'home computer' (and with the Authoritarian states controlling the local market, the sort of ingenuity that saw the development of the home computer is going to struggle heavily), there are no home computers.

Don't forget, the internet came about because of relatively free cooperation between scientists. In an authoritarian society, it may have been invented in a more controlled way.

But then, in a dictatorship with fewer intellectual property laws, the internet could have developed in a more open source way, even if it would probably be less usable and universal. It depends on the authoritarian society and how insane it is.

One thing I'd expect is more ambitious breeding programmes. Both the Nazis and Soviets were interested in this. We may see retro-breeding of extinct species, human hybreds, or God knows what else.

Probably there'd be a smaller consumer market. Maybe this would lead to more supercomputers, rather than a focus on a PCs. But then, maybe there would be a People's Computer to complement the People's Car.

BrotherSideways said:

Don't forget, the internet came about because of relatively free cooperation between scientists. In an authoritarian society, it may have been invented in a more controlled way.

But then, in a dictatorship with fewer intellectual property laws, the internet could have developed in a more open source way, even if it would probably be less usable and universal. It depends on the authoritarian society and how insane it is.

One thing I'd expect is more ambitious breeding programmes. Both the Nazis and Soviets were interested in this. We may see retro-breeding of extinct species, human hybreds, or God knows what else.

Probably there'd be a smaller consumer market. Maybe this would lead to more supercomputers, rather than a focus on a PCs. But then, maybe there would be a People's Computer to complement the People's Car.

Click to expand...

True, but the internet also allows free communication and is harder to regulate. You can be sure any security obsessed Authoritarian state isn't going to allow potential dissidents to group. But as a scientific tool, I agree, it would eventually be used to share data as like OTL.

Breeding programs is a point. We will have far more rigid ideas of what a nations 'race' is very likely. Maybe its just here in the UK but you can be 'British' which has nothing to do with your racial group. I'm not so sure of reviving extinct species, but we can also have a massively leap in Bio-Sciences.

The horrifying nature of a truly insane Authoritarian state is that they can condone and even support experimentation on living humans. Whilst completely barbaric, it will advance medical science far more rapidly as a result. Of course it could also result in scientists 'looking for the answers they know'.

A lot of Nazi genetic research was trying to 'prove' the nature of the Aryan beliefs, which could result in a lot of academic papers based on incorrect or just downright false ideas.

We could see a lot of scientific dead ends as the nations refuse to accept a scientific truth that clashes with their ideology.

DevonPasty said:

Maybe its just here in the UK but you can be 'British' which has nothing to do with your racial group. .

Click to expand...

i always wondered about other countries concept of race/inclusiveness in nationality. It works this way in America too... sometimes.

Anyway, my first thought was the minor US experiments of releasing radiation and infecting people with syphilis. So taking that to the logical, horrible end, i could see an authoritarian government that just brazenly experiments on people. You could even use it as a form of population control. (i don't mean numbers, although thats possible, but controlling their behavior) I for one would be far less likely to speak out against a regime if it keeps my parents from getting irradiated.

And i could see a vastly different internet that is sort of akin to the private transportation networks some governments have. People may be aware of it, but civilian access is extremely limited, mostly to propaganda.

Also, i think your answer depends on how this world is framed. Like lets say a different American revolution gives us a world were "freedom" means really just not getting murdered by your government for petty things. Is it a world in which a nation must be authoritarian to survive? Because then i wonder which is more advantageous for the government, to keep the population in dire servitude, or to try and enrich them in competition with other governments. This is just a guess, but ideals have nothing to do with arms races. You need a popluation that is at least partially literate and partially knowledgeable in order to compete.


(also i can see these authoritarian govts banding together to crush small "democratic insurgencies" for fear that they will trigger a domino effect)

Lysenkoism is a prime example of the latter. No experimental basis at all, but it was Official, and Not For Questioning, and in consequence the Soviet Union couldn't even successfully breed new strains of plants.

"They use it, they didn't INVENT it. Without more 'Free' states to start the initial creation these things don't get made."

Historically speaking, that is incorrect. Despite the potential breaks on technological development that can be applied by authoritarian governments, most scientific developments throughout human history have occurred under authoritarian governments. Even the most notable flowerings of technological development in history - imperial China, Renaissance Italy, Athens - occurred under very authoritarian governments.

To say that any authoritarian system is going to necessary place the same ideological limits on research as the Nazis or Stalin is overly simplistic.

"Breeding programs is a point. We will have far more rigid ideas of what a nations 'race' is very likely.2

Why is that more likely in an authoritarian world? It depends on the form of authoritarianism - if anything communist ideology officially opposed such forms of racial characterization.

"Maybe its just here in the UK but you can be 'British' which has nothing to do with your racial group."

No. it's a fairly common concept in a number of countries.

"One thing I'd expect is more ambitious breeding programmes. Both the Nazis and Soviets were interested in this. We may see retro-breeding of extinct species, human hybreds, or God knows what else."

Human hybrids? No, genetics doesn't work that way.

The ultimate proof that authoritarian governments can't compete against democracies regarding science is how the USA beat the USSR in putting the first artificial satellite in orbit, the first men in orbit and, of course, the first woman in orbit...
(ok, now I have an idea for a DBWI)

In OTL, the USSR lagged behind the USA regarding technology but the fact is that the USSR lagged behind the USA in GDP as well.

Computers and microchips are going to be developed - they are too much of an advantage. And I can totally see a communist country embracing them as a way to streamline central planning. Think Project Cybersyn. And, in doing so, they'd be, in effect, creating the Internet. At some point, email and http will have to be created. It may actually go the opposite way of the Internet: the Internet appeared in the academic circles and was embraced by the commercial sector. This ATL Internet would actually appear on the industrial/commercial sector and would make it's way to academia.

Now, about control, authoritarian states tend to control the Internet. But it doesn't have to be that way. Which could even be worse. During the '70s, the SOP of the Argentine dictatorship included cross referencing suspects' phone books (they used a computer to do so) and checking which books suspects owned when they broke into their homes. Censorship worked under the hypocrite premise that there was no censorship - which meant artists and other cultural referents had to self censor themselves lest they broke the never properly disclosed censorship rules and end up threatened, killed or worse.

Think what such a dictatorship could accomplish in a world where data mining is the norm, where ebook manufacturers not only know exactly what you read but they can also delete those books at will, where intelligence agencies develop cryptographic algorithms so they can know how to break them, where facial recognition software is becoming sort of useful and where people is expected to share a lot of their life online.

It's not the case that technology is neutral. But neither is it the case that a de-centralized technology is automatically liberating.

It's like a soccer game which has both skill and luck, and a whole lot more besides, such that the crowd does demonstrably influences the referees on close calls. And the whole thing is very hard to predict in advance, and perhaps emergently complex(?).

Several years ago there was an incident in China which should be remembered. A train was derailed, and people quickly shared news on social media. It was almost like citizen journalism. And the people got ahead of the official version.

Now, not everything is going to be as straightforward and as visual as a train derailment, but this is an intriguing example with some promise. And the other interesting thing, I think China kind of thinks of itself as a consensus democracy.

The thing is, there are very few technologies that can't be pushed for military applications. The internet - NORAD had the first proto-internet, Cell-phones - disseminating information can be very helpful for battlefield coordination, batteries - torches use batteries, as do portable electronics and a load of other things, etc.

I think the Imperial Germany thing is hinky. For one, it wasn't all that totalitarian even by modern standards, though maybe a bit moreso than, say, the UK at the time and had liberalizing trends before WW1.

Secondly, for a totalitarian system to really stifle technology you need an ideologically based system such as Nazi Germany that dismisses parts of the scientific community ('Jewish vs German Science') or one that dismisses science and technology in it's entirety such as the Taliban.

Another possibility is that you have a system that discourages the free 'out of the box' thinking that is part of innovation. I mean most scientific discoveries and inventions are preceeded by "Hmm, that's odd." after all.

matashowski said:

(also i can see these authoritarian govts banding together to crush small "democratic insurgencies" for fear that they will trigger a domino effect)

Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's a rather interesting idea. And I suspect it may be a combination of ignorance and truth. Children are taught science and technology to make the nation competitive, but through the lens of the leading ideology. Yes, the people are taught how to distill chemicals and solve mathematical equations, but they are also taught <insert group here> are inferior and since they are sub human they have no rights (and to speak against this is treason).

Whitewings said:

Lysenkoism is a prime example of the latter. No experimental basis at all, but it was Official, and Not For Questioning, and in consequence the Soviet Union couldn't even successfully breed new strains of plants.

Click to expand...

I've never heard of this but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

juanml82 said:

The ultimate proof that authoritarian governments can't compete against democracies regarding science is how the USA beat the USSR in putting the first artificial satellite in orbit, the first men in orbit and, of course, the first woman in orbit...
(ok, now I have an idea for a DBWI)

In OTL, the USSR lagged behind the USA regarding technology but the fact is that the USSR lagged behind the USA in GDP as well.

Computers and microchips are going to be developed - they are too much of an advantage. And I can totally see a communist country embracing them as a way to streamline central planning. Think Project Cybersyn. And, in doing so, they'd be, in effect, creating the Internet. At some point, email and http will have to be created. It may actually go the opposite way of the Internet: the Internet appeared in the academic circles and was embraced by the commercial sector. This ATL Internet would actually appear on the industrial/commercial sector and would make it's way to academia.

Click to expand...

I like that idea. I suppose at some point every society needs to build a large data processing network, whether for academia or simply to coordinate central planning.

I'm not saying Authoritarian states can't compete, but I do think it would look rather different the way technology evolves.

MattII said:

The thing is, there are very few technologies that can't be pushed for military applications. The internet - NORAD had the first proto-internet, Cell-phones - disseminating information can be very helpful for battlefield coordination, batteries - torches use batteries, as do portable electronics and a load of other things, etc.

Click to expand...

True, any military technology will inevitably be pushed forward. As as with OTL military technologies (or even any failures for military purposes) will spill over into the non-military sectors and be developed for industrial or commercial use.

GeographyDude said:

Now, not everything is going to be as straightforward and as visual as a train derailment, but this is an intriguing example with some promise. And the other interesting thing, I think China kind of thinks of itself as a consensus democracy.

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on the nature of the Authoritarianism, and the nature of the technology. How fast can information travel? How does the Authoritarian state regulate this? Do they give a population a free hand if the 'truth' gets out or does it fiercely clamp down?

trekchu said:

I think the Imperial Germany thing is hinky. For one, it wasn't all that totalitarian even by modern standards, though maybe a bit moreso than, say, the UK at the time and had liberalizing trends before WW1.

Secondly, for a totalitarian system to really stifle technology you need an ideologically based system such as Nazi Germany that dismisses parts of the scientific community ('Jewish vs German Science') or one that dismisses science and technology in it's entirety such as the Taliban.

Another possibility is that you have a system that discourages the free 'out of the box' thinking that is part of innovation. I mean most scientific discoveries and inventions are preceeded by "Hmm, that's odd." after all.

Click to expand...

That was part of my original thinking too. If something is a state truth you don't question it, and if its not your job to investigate it and you won't be rewarded for doing so you may not bother.

Exactly. I think that this is a part of the reason why the USSR lagged behind the west in several areas.

Thinking about this...

What if you have several totalitarian regimes that compete with each other more or less exclusively, be it because there's no democratic alternative or it's not relevant? I.e. if you had for example a world divided between two totalitarian power blocks with divierging political systems or some that are perceived as such who see each other as the primary competition? In a cold war scenario you might still get the sort of tech race that went on OTL, though maybe at a reduced rate of speed.

trekchu said:

Thinking about this...

What if you have several totalitarian regimes that compete with each other more or less exclusively, be it because there's no democratic alternative or it's not relevant? I.e. if you had for example a world divided between two totalitarian power blocks with divierging political systems or some that are perceived as such who see each other as the primary competition? In a cold war scenario you might still get the sort of tech race that went on OTL, though maybe at a reduced rate of speed.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Compare weapons development in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany during WW2. Technology, particularly rocketry, took a massively leap forward. Even during a period of peace if there are 2 opposing blocks totalitarian or not they will be constantly working on the next generation of 'super weapon' and finding a counter to the enemy's super weapons.

About the Internet, the underlying technologies would evolve (assuming no nuclear wars and "authoritarian" not meaning "North Korea"), but I'd guess that the whole thing would look more like the French Minitel or something, more centralized than OTL's Internet.