AHC: A more advanced Earth

Alternate History Challenge: With a POD no earliest than January 1st 1950, try to make humanity more technologically advanced in any or all fiends than OTL by 2000.

At a minimum try to get 2010-2012 technology by 2000, but if you can make them more advanced if you think its possible. You can make it more advanced in some fields at the expense of others

Bonus points if its in military related technology, drones, satellite, computers, biological or chemical warfare, or space exploration.
Bonus points if the progress is made without the occurence of a Third World War.

No ASB please
 

MSZ

Banned
For medical sciences, allowing for more human subject research would speed up the aquisition of results, thus also the speed of progress. Gruesome, but every medical doctor or pharmacist reseracher will tell you that if they weren't so much restricted before being allowed trials on humans, they would get results much faster. And it is not like there isn't an abundance of volutneers in third world countries willing to risk their health for it for what amounts to peenies for large corporations.

So somehow abolishing the Nuremberg Code, World Medical Association, preventing the Declaration of Helsinki from being introduced, or having any country refuse to abide by them for the purpose of getting more Nobel prizes and get results faster could fulfil your challenge.

Example: A USSR where biological weapons research has more interest put to it, maybe as a result of the Doctor's Purge going through. The next generation of doctors to replace them try to "prove their loyalty" by weaponizing viruses, bacteria, while also promising vaccines against the west's equivalents. They ask for prisoners sentenced to death to use as subjects, the leadership agrees, the USSR has some success thanks to that. The USA responds by condemning it, but unofficially promising immunity to pharmaceutical and medical companies who would perform similiar practices in the third world.
 
For medical sciences, allowing for more human subject research would speed up the aquisition of results, thus also the speed of progress. Gruesome, but every medical doctor or pharmacist reseracher will tell you that if they weren't so much restricted before being allowed trials on humans, they would get results much faster. And it is not like there isn't an abundance of volutneers in third world countries willing to risk their health for it for what amounts to peenies for large corporations.

So somehow abolishing the Nuremberg Code, World Medical Association, preventing the Declaration of Helsinki from being introduced, or having any country refuse to abide by them for the purpose of getting more Nobel prizes and get results faster could fulfil your challenge.

Example: A USSR where biological weapons research has more interest put to it, maybe as a result of the Doctor's Purge going through. The next generation of doctors to replace them try to "prove their loyalty" by weaponizing viruses, bacteria, while also promising vaccines against the west's equivalents. They ask for prisoners sentenced to death to use as subjects, the leadership agrees, the USSR has some success thanks to that. The USA responds by condemning it, but unofficially promising immunity to pharmaceutical and medical companies who would perform similiar practices in the third world.

That's a very interesting POD. What do you think it would take to make that widely acceptable by the present, or avoid the legislation all toether?
 

MSZ

Banned
That's a very interesting POD. What do you think it would take to make that widely acceptable by the present, or avoid the legislation all toether?

Well, you gave the requirement of a post-1950 PoD, so the most obvious one - Mengele and the Third Reich continuing doing human experiments - isn't available. The problem is first of all "medical professionalism" - the oath that says "do no harm" is actually taken very seriously by doctors, those aren't hollow words, and the medical profession does look down on people who don't abide by that. And it is very difficult for such a sentiment not to be present because of another force - christianity, which was always opposed do such horrid treatment of the human body. So it is virtually impossible for doctors to suddenly start accepting a practice that their entire profession was taught not to do since always. Unless there is a serious drive to do that like the Cold War, or a threat of imminent pandemic (artificialy started or not).

The idea that some country with developed medical technologies and a body of doctors allows for such actions while the doctors themselves tell the rest of the world which looks down on them "screw you guys, wait till you see my results, then you will be coming to me to take a look at them" is the only one I can think of. The USA, USSR, China, India might be the most potential candidates due to their population and know-how, but I can't judge which country is the most likely to do so. It could even be Somalia and some warlord there cooperating with a "crazy doctor", using Somalis for testing a vaccine for cancer or AIDS and succeeding. What would be the result of that? Would people accept that the end (or even only a greater probability of success) justifies the means and liberalize human testing? Or would they still look down on it, but then, how would they look if they used the results? IIRC there was a novel by Ludlum, "The Sigma Protocol" that had such a moral dillema.

Now if you can find some terrible disease (I mean AIDS or cancer great terrible) which we did cure in the last few decades, and come up with a scenario that the same cure is found earlier thanks to "illegal testing on human subjects", that could be a start for reversing, or preventing the trend to restrict human testing which occured OTL. Can't come up with anything like this though.
 
Perhaps a less rushed, more thoughtful approach to nuclear reactor design in the 50's/60's leads to less/less serious accidents, as well as more cost efficiency. The combination of lowered costs and better press means a bigger move to nuclear power, reducing the dependence on hydrocarbons by the 70's.

Of course, this impacts the 70's oil crisis (less reliance on oil for power generation, possibly greater use of electric trains too). Also has a knock on effect on the Global Warming debate - elimination of oil/gas for electricity generation in the first world in favour of majority nuclear?
 
Perhaps a less rushed, more thoughtful approach to nuclear reactor design in the 50's/60's leads to less/less serious accidents, as well as more cost efficiency. The combination of lowered costs and better press means a bigger move to nuclear power, reducing the dependence on hydrocarbons by the 70's.

Of course, this impacts the 70's oil crisis (less reliance on oil for power generation, possibly greater use of electric trains too). Also has a knock on effect on the Global Warming debate - elimination of oil/gas for electricity generation in the first world in favour of majority nuclear?

There is a problem in this. If any technology goes without accident for a long time, initially high standards of safety will get relaxed over time. Eventually what would be a slight error, causes major disaster because people will simply forget how to deal with it.

Perhaps having two or three matching opponents in technological race could lead to father development. Running the risk they loose control over the confrontation and end up destroying the world.

Third option would be competition between corporations taken to the max with corporations eventually taking the place of nation states either through subjugation or making them completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, this also runs a high risk of turning into dystopia eventually.
 
Perhaps a less rushed, more thoughtful approach to nuclear reactor design in the 50's/60's leads to less/less serious accidents, as well as more cost efficiency. The combination of lowered costs and better press means a bigger move to nuclear power, reducing the dependence on hydrocarbons by the 70's.

I'm not clear on how this achieves the thread objectives. Nuclear power is awesome, but more nuclear energy doesn't lead ipso facto to higher technology.

More broadly, I think public perception of nuclear safety has less to do with the actual technical facts and more to do with deeper underlying social trends. That's not to say nuclear energy is blameless - although the issue is way more complicated than it is usually treated - just that, without a change in the culture, something was always going to happen that would lead to the backlash we saw OTL.
 
Last edited:
One idea I've been working on for my own TL is the emergence of a technocratic / scientocratic ideology in the US. I'm thinking of replacing or duplicating libertarianism's role in US politics - building initial influence through think-tanks, conferences, publications, etc. Publish papers analyzing the link between R&D funding and economic growth, write novels glorifying engineers and scientists, etc. Push the political agenda towards higher research funding - my plan is to roughly double R&D spending as a percentage of GDP by 1990.
 
One other thing: how do we get a more, technologically advanced Earth by 2012? For example, how does Earth attain a 1930-level tech by say, 1915?
 
As far as energy is concerned, one potential big POD is in the ballpark....

1956 - the Suez Crisis causes a major energy crisis in Western Europe, as a result of oil being restricted from the petroleum-producing nations of the Middle East. This doesn't last long but is seen as a major potential problem for Europe, which needs that oil. The expansion of nuclear power speeds up, but there are other problems.

Hearing this, a delegation from the South African Coal and Oil Company goes to London and invites the guys from British Coal to help them make a case for a major development of the Fischer-Tropsch process. Sasol by this point is well-established in the technology (their first plant at Veereniging beginning operation in 1950) and they pitch it as a solution to Britain's need for oil - after all, Britain has large coal reserves, and demand is dropping as more homes switch to petroleum or electricity for heat and dieselization reduces demand for coal from British Rail. The British government enthusiastically supports the idea, and seeing the future coming, the British government in 1959 merges several ministries and crown corporations into the giant British Energy Corporation, which is responsible for the production of oil. Sasol's move makes then a mountain of money in development fees, and they use the funds to be both be involved in Europe as well as expand operations to North America in 1960s and then to Japan in the early 1970s.

By the time of the 1973 energy crisis, twelve such facilities in Britain have taken over nearly all of the demand for coal in Britain and produce over 30% of the United Kingdom's gasoline and diesel fuel demands. This technological advancement allows Britain to weather the energy crisis rather better than the Western norm - and the discovery of oil in the North Sea makes it genuinely possible for Britain to supply its own energy needs. Now having a real need for the fuel, Britain's coal industry goes through extensive modernization in the 1960s and 1970s, which far less industrial unrest than OTL. British Energy and Sasol expand these operations worldwide, becoming world leaders in the production of synthetic fuels. In America, tightening sanctions against apartheid in South African lead to the entry into the field of Hess Petroleum, the mid-sized American oil company which uses its own cash reserves to jump into the game in a big way. Dozens of such coal-to-liquids plants are built all over the world in the 1970s and 1980s, and by the 2000s are responsible for both a major portion of the world's liquid fuels production, but have also effectively killed coal-fired power plants in much of the world.

In North America, one could also take my old Transport America pretty much wholesale - the basic premise being that the Interstate Highway System is built, but Eisenhower remembers the herculean efforts put in by American railroads during WWII and decides to make sure they are part of the future. This has many effects on railroad modernization, but its funds towards urban transit are such that General Motors gets into the building of mass transit vehicles in the mid 1950s and as a result National City Lines does not dismantle as many light rail lines as IOTL, which after the 1973 energy crisis are quickly electrified. American railroads use the 1950s and 1960s funds to invest heavily in modernization, particularly in the fields of traffic pickup (namely buying numerous smaller trucking firms to act as pickup firms for loads for the railroads, as well as developing fiberglass and metal skids and cargo containers to make the logistics of shipping by rail easier) and signalling, allowing freight railroads to improve their load counts. After a turbulent 1970s, which sees numerous mergers and consolidations, as well as electrification in a whole bunch of places, the industry reorganizes in a big way, and as driver shortages and fuel costs drive up the cost of long-distance trucking, by the 1980s the majority of long-distance freight traffic moves across America by rail. The 1970s see Penn Central (and then Amtrak) develop the first "high-speed" lines in America with their Metroliners, which run at 135 mph speeds, which prove to be a commercial success. True high-speed rail expands into America through both gas-turbine electric trainsets and electrified high-speed trains in 1970s and 1980s, with true European-style HSR beginning operation in the 1990s in the Northeast Corridor, Texas and California. 9/11 shuts down commercial air travel for several days, forcing Amtrak and the existing HSR lines to really push themselves to haul people - but they get it done in a big way, and subsequently when the airlines are bailed out after 9/11, Amtrak gets a ten-figure sum of money and is told to get cracking on making a real HSR system for America, which enters service in the Northeast and Midwest in the late 2000s. This, I should point out, also butterflies Three Mile Island, and so while the anti-nuclear movement exists, its not nearly as influential as IOTL, and many more nuclear reactors are built in the aftermath of the energy crisis.
 
Last edited:
I could easily see a world where vehicles run on natural gas instead of gasoline, and where nuclear and hydro electric power dominate the world's power grids.

I don't know if that counts as "the future", but I think it's a lot more advanced than what we use now.
 

Archibald

Banned
One idea I've been working on for my own TL is the emergence of a technocratic / scientocratic ideology in the US. I'm thinking of replacing or duplicating libertarianism's role in US politics - building initial influence through think-tanks, conferences, publications, etc. Publish papers analyzing the link between R&D funding and economic growth, write novels glorifying engineers and scientists, etc. Push the political agenda towards higher research funding - my plan is to roughly double R&D spending as a percentage of GDP by 1990.

That remind me of the post-Apollo NASA trying to sell the space program as motor to R&D - through spinoffs. they also tried to use the space program as a way to solve the world energy crisis (notably through the infamous Space Based Solar Power).
 
Well, you gave the requirement of a post-1950 PoD, so the most obvious one - Mengele and the Third Reich continuing doing human experiments - isn't available.

That's why I chose that date: to avoid all the WW2 PODs an upheaval at the start of the Cold War. The downside is it only gives 50-60 years for change. The medical exeriments acceptable on humans wouldn't necessarily have to be huge, on the scale or maliciousness of Mengele.

One other thing: how do we get a more, technologically advanced Earth by 2012? For example, how does Earth attain a 1930-level tech by say, 1915?

That's why I said 2012 level by 2000. This question could equally be in the future history section, but if you want to go up to 2012 then just make sure its grounded and you can back up your aruements?


Lots of you have thrown out ideas of improved enery management, how do you think that would impact the world if TheMann's scenario had happened?

Asnys, how viable do you think a technocratic ideaology would be in the US in the long run and what impact would it have, technologically and socially
 
Last edited:
That remind me of the post-Apollo NASA trying to sell the space program as motor to R&D - through spinoffs. they also tried to use the space program as a way to solve the world energy crisis (notably through the infamous Space Based Solar Power).

I'm thinking this is going to be a bit more direct - fund advanced alloys research, not a spaceship that happens to need advanced alloys that can then be used elsewhere. Although the space program will likely benefit from this, the ideological directive is R&D in general, not one particular agency or program. Also, given that it's me, it should come as no surprise that they'll be using lots and lots of atomic energy instead of trying for SBSP.
 
Asnys, how viable do you think a technocratic ideaology would be in the US in the long run and what impact would it have, technologically and socially

I'm not 100% sure, to be honest. I'm still in research mode at this point. My thinking is that it would be accompanied by - in fact, requires - an earlier emergence of organized "nerd" culture. In particular, around a "Junior Scientists' League" organized by the Atomic Energy Commission as a sort of scientific Boy Scouts. If they're successful in the longer run, there are hypothetical but interesting directions this could go in, but I'm not yet prepared to speculate on that.

Technologically, progress obviously does not scale linearly with investment. In an earlier thread on this topic, somebody suggested 30% faster development for doubling of R&D funds. That sounds about right to me. Assuming 150% funding between 1975 and 1990, and 200% funding between 1990 and 2010, that translates to reaching 2010's technological level about midway through 2003. Of course, technology can't really be translated into numbers like that, but it should be a decent ballpark. Even more important than the money would be the extra investment of human talent and energy into science, but that's even harder to quantify.

As for viability, faith in technological progress is as American as the frontier myth. And they don't have to take power openly to have a big influence on politics - in fact, I don't plan to have there ever be an out-and-out Technocrat in office, any more than Ron Paul is ever getting elected president. But they can push the country in their direction, make it so "everyone" (or a large subset of everyone) knows that of course more R&D = better GDP growth and that technology is the solution to all/most of our problems.

Maybe it doesn't last forever, but it doesn't need to to make an interesting TL.
 
After the mysterious and catastrophic loss of BOAC Flight 781 the UK CAA revokes the Comet's Certificate of Air-worthiness until de Havilland can provide an answer for what's wrong. Working feverishly, the de Havilland team eventually chases down the problem, and though public confidence in the aircraft is shaken, the accident is seen merely as the unfortunate risk of being first. The delays and uncertainty did not serve de Havilland well however, and it faced difficult financial times before being bailed out by none other than Saab, who having found little market for the Saab 90 wanted a more modern aircraft to work from. With a temporarily firm financial base, de Havilland begins working on an improved version the Comet 2.

Contact is lost with Vostok 1 soon after take-off, and the pilot/guinea-pig is later found to have suffocated. Meanwhile, fearing that they might be slipping behind, The Americans quickly launch their own mission, thus Alan Shepard becomes the first man to survive a trip into space. Now with at least one first, the US doesn't have the same desire to make a moon-shot, instead settling for a slower but more long-term program.
 
Last edited:
That remind me of the post-Apollo NASA trying to sell the space program as motor to R&D - through spinoffs. they also tried to use the space program as a way to solve the world energy crisis (notably through the infamous Space Based Solar Power).

Space-Based Solar Power is technically feasible, but launch costs make it economically impractical. I wouldn't call it infamous, I happen to think that that idea's time simply hasn't come yet. Once somebody makes a single-stage to orbit spacecraft big enough to carry the satellites to orbit cheap enough for it to be economically viable, the idea will catch on and fairly quickly.
 

MSZ

Banned
That's why I chose that date: to avoid all the WW2 PODs an upheaval at the start of the Cold War. The downside is it only gives 50-60 years for change. The medical exeriments acceptable on humans wouldn't necessarily have to be huge, on the scale or maliciousness of Mengele.

Ok, so more relaxed restrictions regarding the use of human subjects. I am quite sure we would see more drugs being developed if there were more of them being available. Imagine a cold war were the "biological warfare scare" was as strong as the OTL "nuclear war scare". Governments mobilized entire societies to take precautions to prevent imminent death from it, and sacrificed a lot of resources for ineffective countermeasures. If the same was done in regard to biological warfare, teaching kids to wash their hands, or hygine masks and rubber gloves being given out to the population, then more funding for research on vaccines and treatments could give better effects. OTL vaccines against influenza or measles were discovered only in the 60's; rabbies and hepatitis in the 80's. Using humans purposefully infected with them (as they highly contagious, being airborne/waterborne making them a good choice for weaponization) could give results at least a few years, if decades earlier.

Even simply liberalizing the "drug trial" market could net you enough volunteers to have a base for experimentation. Those are only rumors/conspiracies thatpharmaceutical corporations have secret labs in Africa testing drugs there, developing AIDS, etc. but what if it was true? And some "miracle vaccine" (say, our OTL MMR vaccine coming fifteen years earlier) leading to some journalist finding "test camps" in Liberia - but rather than outrage, the population however not reacting with outrage once they hear "they were all volunteers, we paid them good money,the effects are here" - but acceptance?
 
Can I just bump Asnys and TheMann's ideas?

IMO the big problem I have with technical progress is that the US and most of the West went for low-hanging fruit over the last forty years since Apollo.
No hate on the really cool drugs and C4I tech we've developed since the 1970's but I'd have been cool with Clarke's 2001-level goodies.

I like the AEC or NASA Science Scouts as a PR tool and incubator of scientific/engineering talent 1950-onward. Despte my bents for geology and microbiology, I really hoped for a lot more funding and therefore progress in basic physics research, though I agree with Asnys who has said many times, progress doesn't directly scale to funding.

Is it better to have a few sharp people doing great with a shoestring budget or a lot of people doing random stuff just because the funding floodgates are open hoping some team of monkeys manages to stumble onto GUT, viable nuclear fusion or nanotech?
Solve the riddle of where just a little more funding would cause a wonderful bloom of productivity once a good idea/product gets some legs and you could be a venture capitalist.
 
Top