alternatehistory.com

Title is fairly self explanatory. The consensus I've seen(here and elsewhere) is that the radical transition of the past two centuries(accelerating development of technology, human labour no longer the primary power source, demographic boom followed by demographic transition) originated from the confluence of Caribbean plantation capital, American slave cotton, Indian captive markets and British coal supplies(and mumble capitalism mumble instititutions etc.).

So let's say that confluence is aborted. France squeezes out Britain in India during the 18th century, but Britain successfully squashes the American revolution. France still suffers their revolution and their alt-Napoleon decides against re-instituting slavery- instead he sponsors slave rebellions in the British Caribbean. Alt-Napoleon then pulls the same trick that OTL Napoleon tried on Nelson, luring him into the Caribbean while France prepares to invade Britain(but alt-Nelson falls for it). Alt-Napoleon then is able to dictate terms to Britain, including the loss of any remaining slave plantations and Indian territory. And perhaps some harmful indemnities and trade concessions are imposed as well. As for America... alt-Napoleon no doubt backs a second rebellion, but with American conservatives and slavers rallying to the British it'd take on a more fratricidal and revolutionary character(similar to what was seen in Spanish American rebellions). Nevertheless, with Napoleons occupation of England the British have no choice but to grant them independence, the revolutionaries win and proceed to abolish slavery thus crippling cotton production.

Not sure how plausible that particular sequence of events is, but run with it, if you will.

This of course doesn't mean that human society stays static, you'd still have progress in science and technology. But it might mean that progress in various fields remains essentially linear, or at least less exponential then what we've seen in the last two centuries OTL.

Another possibility is that scientific and technological progress are only mildly slowed, while at the same time industrial mass production doesn't scale up and human society remains essentially Malthusian until the present. So rather then OTL's pattern where new technologies are initially only affordable by the wealthy but are later mass produced to the point where even the poor can afford them, we instead see a world where a more limited and primitive set of "modern" technologies are the exclusive province of probably less then ~10% of a countries elite. Similar to what we see OTL in parts of Subsaharan Africa, I suppose.

A third possibility is that this simply delays the industrial revolution, and that inescapable economic truisms mean that mass production will eventually get off the ground once certain technological foundations have been layed(barring an apocalyptic crisis). I wonder if this is likely to mean a broader based industrial transition on multiple countries and continents, or whether we'd still have a dominant first mover akin to Britain/Europe.

In theory these scenarios might be good news for non-Western countries, since it means a less powerful Europe that is less able to conquer and exploit them. But OTOH it also means a Europe that remains Malthusian and doesn't see it's birthrate decline, which could mean continued settler colonialism well into the 21st century.
Top