20th Century Humanity-wank Challenge.

Here's one I haven't seen on this forum yet:

With a PoD of no later than Jan 1st, 1850, turn the 20th Century into something that meets the following requirements:
  • The World GDP/Capita [on Jan 1st, 2000] is roughly $15,000 in today's dollars. This Figure is roughly equal to South Korea, Russia and Mexico today, and a good bit higher than average.
  • No Nation in the 20th Century is responsible for the deaths of more than .1% (one in one thousand) of its own people. Accidents might happen, but governments in general should not persecute their own people to any more than this degree.
  • Global deaths as a result of warfare number under 5 Million for the Entire Century (Compare to something like 40 million or more in OTL 20th Century)
  • Nuclear Weapons are Never Used.
  • Deaths from diseases (AIDS, Influenza, and other maladies) are half of OTL's figures.
Now, I'm not sure how possible this is, or what this would entail, but I want it to be at least plausible, if this is even possible. I want to stay away from all-out ASB scenarios, but I am cognizant of the fact that if massive wars had not destroyed large portions of industry and military spending such a large portion of economic resources, the results really could be very impressive.

The PoD is all the way back in 1850 to give the designers more choices and flexibility in making the world a better place. I'm most concerned about the period 1900 to 2000, but I would also consider the situations 1850-1900 and 2000+ as well.

In short, I to see a "All-Humanity Wank" and see how possible it could be.
 
Last edited:
It would require people not being greedy and abusing less advanced/wealthy people, and that any people abused would not feel hate towards the people who abused them.

Another scenario is that leaders would be extremely careful about warfare, to such an extent that they treat colonies better, to not risk a rebellion.

All in all, more or less ASB.
 
I see possibilities, if we're allowed to play something of a stats game. Keeping it vague for the moment...we'll have to make the middle of the 19th century utterly miserable. Kind of cheating in a "humanity wank," but I think it'll work.

If we can create a massive world conflict mid-century with no side able to claim an advantage, that's a start. Bled white, the thing ends similarly to some of the more idealistic "CP Victory in WWI" TLs as the basis for international cooperation. If this occurs in the 1850s it is possible that the war won't be nearly as catastrophic as WWI, but could still be seen as an undeniable reason to change.
Throwing in ecological disasters always helps. Famine, pestilence, etc. Population loss is significant, perhaps .5-1%. Enough to cause significant unrest, but not enough to topple society. Industrial and scientific innovation are used at an institutional level to combat them.

The conditions that cause famine and disease are investigated, leading to social and agricultural reform, and the nascent stirrings of environmentalism (a notion existing at least from the 18th century) begin to gain respect. Its tenets are based on the economic principles that appeal to the governments of the day (economies based on supply-and-demand cease to function if you permanently exhaust the supply.)

The loss of population and the need for food increases the drive towards automation, but the OTL pressure this placed on immigration is eased somewhat. As the decades progress, the linked curves of automation and unemployment are eased by this initial loss of what would otherwise be surplus population
(rather cold-blooded I know, apologies.)

Political attitudes towards international cooperation are thus normalized by the turn of the century.
Other academic theories piggy back their way into politics with the accession of the medical profession to the hearts of the people. The basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath are restructured for the diplomatic and bureaucratic worlds.

As the non-European world seeks to modernize, these philosophies (tempering but not weakening capitalism) emigrate along with military tactics and industrial practices.

Conflicts and paternalism still occur, but not at the cost of profit or general well-being.
Now, as to the specific requirements of the challenge:

  • GDP/Per Capita $15,000: I see the wealthiest 5% of the world MUCH richer with modest gains for the rest of the world. Africa changes the least, while much of South America and Southeast Asia are easily considered members of the first world.
  • No more than .1% internal deaths: Taken care of by the increased humanitarianism and focus on social reforms.
  • Global warfare deaths under 5m: Internationalism makes diplomacy the default method for dealing with conflicts by the 1890s.
  • Nuclear weapons: Remove both world wars and nukes are unlikely to develop anyway.
  • Deaths from disease half OTL: Medical science is a cultural keystone of this world.
Done! (If you ignore the fact that I didn't include an actual historical POD that is...:eek:)
 
Expat, that's a very interesting reply.

When you think that 19th Century responses to war included Allfred Nobel creating his prizes, and the setting-up of the Red Cross, a really nasty war might do the trick.

My thoughts are that it would be less unlikely to occur if the Americas were still European colonies, so that the POD needs to be before the colonists win the American War of Independence.

Poison Gas might be the 'nasty' factor that triggers a 'no more war' response afterwards. How early could poison gases have been invented?
 
If there are no wars or Cold War-style arms races, wouldn't that impair social and technological development? Wars usually tended to drive that forward in our past century.
 
US Civil War

Unfortunately it's not possible: Without WWI militarism remains strong, and without WWII social democracy does not emerge. A really nasty war just isn't going to be nasty enough: Germany was all set for WWII after being destroyed in WWI.
 
Unfortunately it's not possible: Without WWI militarism remains strong, and without WWII social democracy does not emerge. A really nasty war just isn't going to be nasty enough: Germany was all set for WWII after being destroyed in WWI.

I think Stressemann, Ebert, and even Hindenburg, as well as all those who followed in their political footsteps, would disagree with that statement...
 
The Socialists were more or less bound to take over, unless the Reich turned into a brutally oppressive dictatorship. They were big on international solidarity and that stuff.
 
Okay.. this means:

- Absolutely no World War I, World War II, rise of Communism, most forms of Fascism, etc. No Hitlers, Pol Pots, Mao Zedongs, etc.
- Excellent global economic growth. Note the OTL $15,000 worldwide per capita GDP by 2000, this means that there must be substantial economic stability and growth in almost every nation. The "Third World" would be more akin to our world's "Second World" - nations like Argentina, Thailand, or South Africa. Also, its not a "people are poor everywhere" secnario.
- Very little warfare means fewer nations which are more apt to cooperate with each other or compete without outright warfare.
- Democracy of some sort MUST triumph quickly.

This is nearly impossible, but to get closer, here are some ideas:
- "World War I" in the 1880s or early 1890s, to discredit some types of nationalism. End result could be a Mainland-Europe-wide "Zollverein" led by Germany, while Russia has a revolution with a pseudo-Menshevik victory and France manages not to go fascistic. Probably France+Russia vs. Germany+Austria-Hungary+Italy. The British remain relatively uninvolved, and thus focus more on straightening out their empire.
- a possibility to "kill 2 birds with one stone" is to have this "World War" have a fascistic France itself, possibly instead of the 3rd Republic you get the Nazi-analogues after the Franco-Prussian war - including nastiness to Jews (to a lesser degree than the actual Nazis, of course). This may even see Britain on the German side, at least in terms of support... this is around the time of Disraeli, too.
- A more thorough Reconstruction and earlier Civil Rights push in the United States... end result being better treatment of minorities, including natives, by 1900.
- Colonialism is necessary for the economic boost, and needs to be done "right" - i.e. better management, less killing, more building of infrastructure. The British were generally better about this than, say, the Spanish, Portugese, or Belgians.
- More US expansionism southward pre-1900. While for the most part this may not improve human rights much, it has a good chance of boosting worldwide per capita GDP and some places will see marked improvements on human rights as well (Haiti, for example - its hard to imagine even a US-in-Philippines-OTL administration would be nearly as bad as some of Haiti's dictators).
- Karl Marx dies of something nasty long before Das Kapital is published. Though The Communist Manifesto is pre-POD, killing him off earlier and making other changes may prevent Communism from becoming more than another offbeat political ideology that never amounts to much. Actually, it may make more sense to off Lenin and Stalin, so that Communism is around, but not Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
- King Leopold of Belgium never gets anywhere near the Kongo, which instead gets divvied up by the French, British, and Germans who administer it about as well as their OTL colonies.
- Boer Wars do not happen, occur prior to 1900, or see the British taking a less heavy-handed position.
- No World War II equivalent in 20th century, this not only prevents 30+ million deaths from the war itself, but allows colonialism to end with a "softer landing".
- For economic growth in the later 20th century, Africa needs a much better economic position.
 
So for a POD, how about . . . no American Revolution? The Americans end up in a relationship with the United Kingdom that both sides find amenable. The lack of an American Revolution leads to a later Anglo-French round of wars, perhaps over the Netherlands (the whole Patriots thing that the Prussians put an end to) in the early to mid 1780's. This war would allow the Anglo-Prussian vs. Franco-Austrian "Diplomatic Revolution" to be tested on the battlefield. Probably the Franco-Austrians get stomped, between Joseph II's incompetence and French domestic instability, and British money to back Prussian arms.

A later French Revolution, perhaps happening in the 1810's, causes war and widespread French military success, but instead of a Napoleonic figure to extend the wars, they end in the mid-1820's. This stokes nationalism around Europe, but keeps more Frenchman alive. Also, with the much shorter time of French occupation, there is a little better taste of French-inspired republicanism. The British and their American countrymen are key in ending the French Revolution, with Anglo-American troops winning several key battle following an invasion of France from Spain.

This leads to more organizing for pan-German republicanism, so the next revolution should be during the next major food shortage, so '48, and it will be radical. The Germans experience a rather brutal revolution, with much more fighting. The result is a successful German Revolution, and this sets off the long and exhausting war that will consume so many European lives mid-century. The '48 Rebellions destroys the German princely states and the Austrian Empire. The French Kingdom also suffers from civil disorder, and the Bourbon Dynasty suffers from major rebellion which renders it unable to intervene while Germany forms a new Republic.

The German Revolutionary Wars end up consuming millions of lives. The Germans beat back both French and Russian attempts at intervention. They push into northern France and stall outside Paris (sounds familiar I know . . . ). The Anglo-Americans, now fearing that the Germans will be able to overcome the French, decide to intervene, and with the massive strength of British Expeditionary Force, are able to force the Germans back into Germany. The German Republic manages to maintain internal cohesion, but is forced to sign a rather harsh treaty, which makes some major territorial concessions that make the French feel much more secure.

The British show of force turns into British domination of the peace negotiations. The British are able to get some free trade provisions in the treaty, as well as getting free trade provisions with the French and Russians as the price of intervention (these are in the alliance treaties with both countries). British industrial development speeds up with unfettered access to many European (and the American) markets.

Free-market capitalism and the big and steady returns that come from industrial development is the rising tide that lifts all boats, and the world starts getting rich and happy . . . at least if your not slaving away in one of those shiny new factories . . .

Unions and Social Democracy manage to iron out the difficulties that come out of industrialization. With the long and bloody German Wars in the middle of the century, Europe has neither the strength or interest in trying to conquer bits of darkest Africa or the exotic far east. The combined strength of the Anglo-American "British Empire" makes European war post-Germany seem rather far fetched, since they made clear that they would and could intervene in European conflicts and end them. Furthermore, the free trade that the British imposed in the aftermath of the German Wars allows countries to channel their competitive energies into economic competition. So with war sort of out of the question and the economy much more cut-throat, Europe does not face another war. Some bush wars, in the Balkans and on the edges of European domination (China and Japan both still need to be opened) still happen, but by 1900, this is a relatively shiny, happy world, dominated by industrialized (and ing) countries with relatively strong democratic traditions.
 
Last edited:
If there are no wars or Cold War-style arms races, wouldn't that impair social and technological development? Wars usually tended to drive that forward in our past century.

Wars do drive development at a horrible cost. The reason why development is driven is not, IMHO, a peculiar outcome of war itself. It is the result of a massive mobilization of resources towards a common purpose.

Take the space program. The reason space programs were initially able to gain funding was because of the potential threat of a rival using space for military purposes. But the discoveries made in space were not due to any military conflict per se. For any given development, scientists in the US or USSR were simply given a problem to solve and a budget to solve it with.

Similarly for social development, war might spur it, but other things do as well. One could make a convincing case that the success of capitalism is the direct result of the Protestant Reformation.

If we can just imagine a culture where the exaultation of advancement drives the allocation of greater resources, and where the culture supports stability over all else, we can advance without war.
 
Wars do drive development at a horrible cost. The reason why development is driven is not, IMHO, a peculiar outcome of war itself. It is the result of a massive mobilization of resources towards a common purpose.

Take the space program. The reason space programs were initially able to gain funding was because of the potential threat of a rival using space for military purposes. But the discoveries made in space were not due to any military conflict per se. For any given development, scientists in the US or USSR were simply given a problem to solve and a budget to solve it with.

Similarly for social development, war might spur it, but other things do as well. One could make a convincing case that the success of capitalism is the direct result of the Protestant Reformation.

One could also say that the Protestant Reformation was the result of an inevitable class struggle between the rising urban merchant class and the landed nobility, which resulted in Protestantism because of the peculiar political circumstances of the time. Given different circumstances a far different outcome could have occured (witness the rise of French absolutism and English Parliamentarism at the same time Germany was bleeding itself white over religion).

If we can just imagine a culture where the exaultation of advancement drives the allocation of greater resources, and where the culture supports stability over all else, we can advance without war.
If you have relatively unfettered free-market competition between the various Western powers, then I think that you would avoid the need to go to war. There is always going to be conflict, the question is whether that conflict is going to be between countries on the battlefield or between commercial entities in the boardroom. I would say that the modern model, of a single superpower guarenteeing a relatively open playing field for a free-market global economy could have been achieved in the 19th century if the United States has stayed inside the British Empire of its own volition.

OTL the British Empire was the pre-eminent power of the 19th century. In this ATL it would be the absolutely unchallenged power of the 19th century, with the military might to not only impose its will through naval force, but impose its will through land forces as well. I would say that the British Empire would be almost unstoppable as a military force in this ATL, and its general goal is getting rich through free trade. Call me an optimist, but I think that this ATL would lead to a unipolar world by the end of the 19th century, and to a peaceful and prosperous 20th Century.
 
One could also say that the Protestant Reformation was the result of an inevitable class struggle between the rising urban merchant class and the landed nobility, which resulted in Protestantism because of the peculiar political circumstances of the time. Given different circumstances a far different outcome could have occured (witness the rise of French absolutism and English Parliamentarism at the same time Germany was bleeding itself white over religion).

If you have relatively unfettered free-market competition between the various Western powers, then I think that you would avoid the need to go to war. There is always going to be conflict, the question is whether that conflict is going to be between countries on the battlefield or between commercial entities in the boardroom. I would say that the modern model, of a single superpower guarenteeing a relatively open playing field for a free-market global economy could have been achieved in the 19th century if the United States has stayed inside the British Empire of its own volition.

OTL the British Empire was the pre-eminent power of the 19th century. In this ATL it would be the absolutely unchallenged power of the 19th century, with the military might to not only impose its will through naval force, but impose its will through land forces as well. I would say that the British Empire would be almost unstoppable as a military force in this ATL, and its general goal is getting rich through free trade. Call me an optimist, but I think that this ATL would lead to a unipolar world by the end of the 19th century, and to a peaceful and prosperous 20th Century.

I somewhat agree, but with three points of contention:

1) Halving diseases and ensuring no significant internal genocide requires more than this.

2) The development of a unipolar world could still lead to an increase in proxy wars, especially given the British model of corporate extraterritoriality in the 18th and 19th centuries.

3) The POD was set for 1850 or later.
 
Top