And in this world could we still have the world wars, the Nazis and the cold war with the Soviet Union and the red China just like our timeline?An easy answer is to have the US reform to become a technology focused power, and generally have a much larger economy.
Begin by not passing the Immigration Act 1924 to allow tens of millions of Europeans to arrive in the US after 1924, largely from Italy, Germany and the Ukraine I'd imagine. Also reform the Chinese Exclusion Act to allow for for some Asian immigration, so that Asian Americans form around 10% of most western US states.
Also by the 1950s there should be the movement of hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans into the US. By 1960, the US population should be 230 million instead of 180 million IOTL. Anyway, continue this rapid immigration by encouraging economic and social integration to keep immigration population. Also, change American culture to become more focused on technology similar to Korea, Japan or even Germany.
Anyway, have a wealthier US build up much of Latin America. By 2020 make Brazil another Japan in terms of economy, population and technological output, and make Mexico another Germany, and make Argentina and Venezuela another UK and South Korea in terms of output.
By 2020 the American population should be around 505 million, and their output per person should be as large as Israel is today. That should be enough.
And in this world could we still have the world wars, the Nazis and the cold war with the Soviet Union and the red China just like our timeline?
And in this world, how could India become what China is today and in addition to terms '' made in china '' terms also '' made in india ''?
And would Latin America be as developed as the USA, Japan and Europe? could we have brazil as a superpower or would it be just a power at the level of japan?
But then we likely lack advances in other key areas, especially microelectronics. No WWI means likely no WWII so computers, spaceflight, lightweight alloys, almost anything involving nuclear technology, and a lot of medical technology (among others) develop more slowly or perhaps quite differently. Transistors are still likely but without the push of military cryptology etc. are likely much slower to develop, maybe 20-30 years slower.no ww1
Well let's no under appreciate the effects of a Europe that never has millions dead and has larger populations. How many potential inventors died in the war? Eastern Europe especially will be larger and wealthier in this world. I mean Russia without communism or WW2 would probably have double it's current population, likely more. Fair enough the USSR helped advance space technology, but the effects of having a consumer base of 300 million people by 2020 would probably be much larger. Industrial economies in the UK, Germany, Benelux will have tens of millions of more people by 2020 too. Austria-Hungary (if it survived, if not the area it was in) would have over 100 million people inventing, consuming and pushing technology forward. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would also all have larger populations doing the same.But then we likely lack advances in other key areas, especially microelectronics. No WWI means likely no WWII so computers, spaceflight, lightweight alloys, almost anything involving nuclear technology, and a lot of medical technology (among others) develop more slowly or perhaps quite differently. Transistors are still likely but without the push of military cryptology etc. are likely much slower to develop, maybe 20-30 years slower.
agree to disagreeBut then we likely lack advances in other key areas, especially microelectronics. No WWI means likely no WWII so computers, spaceflight, lightweight alloys, almost anything involving nuclear technology, and a lot of medical technology (among others) develop more slowly or perhaps quite differently. Transistors are still likely but without the push of military cryptology etc. are likely much slower to develop, maybe 20-30 years slower.
There's also the question of funding, especially for R&D. While there are purely civilian concepts brought to the market from the lab, often unless a government or monolithic corporate/government hybrid (Bell Labs) is involved, many of the great inventions if OTL might have floundered or be orphaned, especially if wealthy investors aren't easily sold on the idea. Lilienfield needed sponsors and better press - had he obtained these who knows where we would be today.Well let's no under appreciate the effects of a Europe that never has millions dead and has larger populations. How many potential inventors died in the war? Eastern Europe especially will be larger and wealthier in this world. I mean Russia without communism or WW2 would probably have double it's current population, likely more. Fair enough the USSR helped advance space technology, but the effects of having a consumer base of 300 million people by 2020 would probably be much larger. Industrial economies in the UK, Germany, Benelux will have tens of millions of more people by 2020 too. Austria-Hungary (if it survived, if not the area it was in) would have over 100 million people inventing, consuming and pushing technology forward. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would also all have larger populations doing the same.
Also bear in mind that no WWs probably means earlier global shipping, and so places such as China could begin their expansion a decade earlier. This wealth grows exponentially to allow a far wealthier world. I think all of that definitely makes up for loss of technology.
Europe and North America aren't fighting each other, and are still making significant advances in technology. War isn't necessary to for scientific advancement.But then we likely lack advances in other key areas, especially microelectronics. No WWI means likely no WWII so computers, spaceflight, lightweight alloys, almost anything involving nuclear technology, and a lot of medical technology (among others) develop more slowly or perhaps quite differently. Transistors are still likely but without the push of military cryptology etc. are likely much slower to develop, maybe 20-30 years slower.
If anything wars mean that less government funding goes to civilian scientific advancements and that more private money gets invested in war bonds instead of propping up new companies or financing interesting research.
Wartime often facilitates development of newer technologies, peacetime often helps refine/mature existing ones.Europe and North America aren't fighting each other, and are still making significant advances in technology. War isn't necessary to for scientific advancement.
Yeah. I was thinking no Black Death. But that's ASB.This would require quite a radical pre 1900 timeline deviation.
No, it's war that leads to short-term boosts in existing technologies. In wartime, you wan't new weapons and equipment right now - you don't have time to wait to invent a new one. It's peace that helps with long term scientific development, especially as it doesn't kill of a significant fraction of your military-aged population.Wartime often facilitates development of newer technologies, peacetime often helps refine/mature existing ones.
India already is a federal state, and yet it never achieved industrialization on china's scale. For it to develop, it needs a different leadership not focused on socialist and import substitution policies, but open and free trading ones.Yeah I purposefully only changed the US rather than the entire world. Cold war probably helps technology as both sides can continue to compete in technology. One idea is a federal india, where one state introduces pro buisness pro industry laws and this is soon copied by many states to achieve a China like system in several parts of India.
And yeah it could be. Brazil won't be a superpower as it doesn't have the population for it. If it industrialises successfully in the period of 1945 to 1975 as Italy did, then it's population will be much smaller as birthrates drop dramatically, so that by 2020 there would be negative growth. By 2020 I don't see it having more than 150 million people at the very maximum, and it would probably be around 120 million, similar to Japan.
Wow yeah don't know where i got that from. It is a bit sad because to see a higher standard of living you don't even need massively competent leadership, just one that allows more economic freedom.India already is a federal state, and yet it never achieved industrialization on china's scale. For it to develop, it needs a different leadership not focused on socialist and import substitution policies, but open and free trading ones.
India already is a federal state, and yet it never achieved industrialization on china's scale. For it to develop, it needs it needs a different leadership not focused on socialist and import substitution policies, but open and free trading ones.