Malê Rising

[othyrsyde]

Again, speaking on both of the last updates, you summed up the painful transition of the Congolese cultures forming a common identity and the institutions for a modern state. It's going to be interesting, because as others have said, they're really going to want to avoid having TTL's version of UN intervention from coming in. This might lead to more of sense of compromise within the various blocs, but we'll see. Either way, things are progressing very plausibly and reflect the unique developments of TTL.

As for the Cargo Cult state, wow that was about the most awesome thing I've read in Post-1900 AH ever.

For the moment, now that their independence has been recognized, they're building a nation in their mountains and not concerning themselves much with the rest of the world - sort of an Andorra of the Andes. That will change.

Cool, and can't wait to read about that change.

There's been a trend for "world fashion" in the wake of the Washington Conference, of which the South Asian influence is part. There's some influence from West Africa too, via Paris and Charleston, as well as a revival of interest in the folk costumes of northern and eastern Europe. The styles of the mid-late 50s are eclectic, and only parts of them will last.

Sounds cool, I'll have make sure a reference is made to that in my future guest update.

Hmmm, yeah. I was imagining Frank as one of the "young turks" of the movement, with a casual attitude toward what his elders held sacred. But now that you mention it, that reads a bit wrong - as you say, the AIM would have a large spiritual component, and while Frank might laugh at some of what the older people venerate, he probably wouldn't do that toward something with explicit ritual significance.

Let's assume that when he said "I should have brought some peyote," he was making a joke, or maybe a sardonic comment on New Yorkers' use of marijuana as part of social ritual.

Sounds good. Even with Natives who have completely embraced Christianity, other faiths, or are non-religious there's still a huge amount of respect given toward traditional things. Obviously there's those who don't, but they tend to be very assimilated, and wouldn't associate all that much with the greater Native community, especially at an activist level. Basically it's good way to get ostracized, which is bad if you're part of an activist movement.

Very likely. The reservations did take part in the civil rights battles of the 20s and 30s, so their self-rule is a lot more real, and there's much less interference and forcible assimilation. Children have gone to school on the rez since then, and in the 50s there are colleges on the larger ones. Most of the dictatorial chiefs were overthrown, and the Sequoyah constitution has also been influential in establishing the forms of democracy, although there's still a lot of factionalism and small-town cronyism, and as you say, this will mean a lot of conflict down the road. Casino gambling might not be such a big thing ITTL, but resources certainly will, and so will industrial development.

I hope you'll continue to set me straight about these things.

Don't worry, I'll help out when I can. What needs to be figured out is how much of the same policies occurred to Natives in TTL compared to ours. Overall the butterflies really didn't alter things too much in grand scheme of our treatment - such as Indian Removal, the wars, and the forcing of the tribes onto reservations. Boarding schools were also a given since they would want to "civilize" Natives. Though given the formation of Sequoyah, this is where we'd begin to see the butterflies really take shape in altering BIA policies and so forth. I don't have time to get into full speculation now, but that can be saved for another post (plus I'd need to reread the update on Sequoyah).

 

[Workable Goblin]

Hmmm. India, Russia and China are still primarily land powers, and their military priorities will hinge on defending against land threats. They'll want to defend their sea lanes (Russia, especially, will want to make sure it can force the Bosporus or Baltic open in the event that either are closed), but they probably won't build really big blue-water navies.

I wouldn't be so sure. Like I said, Russia's navy was traditionally large; even IOTL, with the revolutionary overthrow of the old guard, the Soviets eventually came back around to this point of view. Something about showing strength or some such.

As for China and India, both of them have large coastlines and will be dependent on resources from overseas (especially oil), so they will want fairly powerful navies; there may also be a component of post-colonialism there, wanting to "show off," if you will. A navy is good for that. They also have the resources to have both a large army and a large navy, if they choose, like the United States IOTL.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

A state cargo cult is something so bizarre yet so plausible. Also, excellent Kobayashi Maru reference. I half-expected a Solomon Islander Kirk to pop up.

Well, we've already had an African Queen. (And the reason no one popped up from the Roviana merchantman/pirate was that they realized it would be a no-win situation.)

And a state cargo cult - which will change quite a bit as the years progress - is the least of what may happen in the Solomons. The Pacific treaty is allowing states to form on their own time along non-Western models. There will be some influences - the Pacific Islanders have all met foreign traders and missionaries, and many of them have read foreign books or worked or studied abroad - but the countries that emerge will adapt traditional Melanesian and Polynesian forms to a degree unprecedented in OTL. We'll visit Hawaii as well during this narrative series, and while it will be the most foreign-influenced of the Pacific states, there will be quite a bit that's indigenous, and with no single group of foreigners having hegemony, assimilation will actually run toward the Polynesian part of the culture.

This seems as good a time as any to detail the state of the Pacific as of 1960. At this point, the islands included in outside countries are Micronesia, including Palau, the Northern Marianas and the Marshall Islands (Japan); Fiji, New Caledonia, Cook Islands, Niue and what would be French Polynesia IOTL (Australasia), the Gilbert Islands and Nauru (Germany), Easter Island (Chile) and a few minor guano islands (the United States). Eastern New Guinea and the outlying islands were formerly German but are now independent.

Of the treaty islands, Hawaii (including the inhabited Line Islands and Sikaiana), Samoa and Tonga are unified kingdoms. As mentioned, there are three proto-states in the Solomons, and the three traditional kingdoms still exist on Wallis and Futuna. The Ellice Islands, Tokelau and Rotuma are theocratic republics built, with the aid of missionaries, around traditional councils of elders. The Santa Cruz Islands, which aren't considered part of the Solomons ITTL, are as yet unincorporated into any large-scale polity.

Vanuatu is the interesting one. The outlying islands are still pre-state, but the larger ones, especially Efate, got a lot of settlement during the nineteenth century, and the planters, ranchers and small businessmen continued to come in during the early twentieth - and because the niVanuatu were at a much earlier stage of political organization than the Hawaiians or Samoans, they were the ones who established a state structure. The French are a plurality, but the other settlers come from all over Europe as well as East Asia, India and West Africa, and at the moment, they're organized in a republic with the ni-Vanuatu getting Latin Right citizenship at foundation and universal citizenship in the 1930s. There's a lot of inequality and conflict over land, but widespread intermarriage and concessions to local elites have smoothed things over somewhat. The emphasis should be on "somewhat."

I think you'll see multiple world policemen ITTL: All-India (as a bloc), France, Russia, the US, the UK, Japan all come to mind.

The ideal is for the Court of Arbitration to be the world policeman and for individual countries' efforts to be channeled through it. Of course, given disparities of resources, certain participants - including all of those you mentioned, as well as Germany and China - will be first among equals. Also, the fact that peacekeeping is supposed to go through the court doesn't mean it always will, and there will no doubt be missions carried out by individual countries or groups of countries, especially where they're at a relatively small scale.

Another thing that the Peace Department might end up creating, if not peacekeeping, could be something along the lines of the OTL Peace Corps, which could in turn lead to a few peacekeeping commitments once those programs are put in danger.

Something like this seems likely, especially with the new sense of global engagement that followed the Washington Conference. I'd imagine there are many idealistic kids who would volunteer for Peace Corps-type projects, and even with the "Third World" doing better ITTL, some places will still need them.

Sounds good. Even with Natives who have completely embraced Christianity, other faiths, or are non-religious there's still a huge amount of respect given toward traditional things.

I guess doing otherwise would amount to disrespecting history as well as religion, more or less the way that most irreligious Jews still won't trivialize Jewish symbols.

What needs to be figured out is how much of the same policies occurred to Natives in TTL compared to ours. Overall the butterflies really didn't alter things too much in grand scheme of our treatment - such as Indian Removal, the wars, and the forcing of the tribes onto reservations. Boarding schools were also a given since they would want to "civilize" Natives. Though given the formation of Sequoyah, this is where we'd begin to see the butterflies really take shape in altering BIA policies and so forth. I don't have time to get into full speculation now, but that can be saved for another post (plus I'd need to reread the update on Sequoyah).

I think Sequoyah will be seen as something of a special case, given that the Native population was assimilated and well-connected in local politics. They're politically conscious, but many of them will have attitudes similar to Charles Curtis IOTL, which work for them given their influence in state politics but won't work so well for tribes that still live on reservations. What Sequoyah will do is put Natives on the national stage and make the "civilizing" mission seem a bit ridiculous, which would help clear the way for the civil rights battles in the 1920s-30s and after. As I said, I think the boarding schools would go out by the mid-30s if not earlier.

I wouldn't be so sure. Like I said, Russia's navy was traditionally large; even IOTL, with the revolutionary overthrow of the old guard, the Soviets eventually came back around to this point of view. Something about showing strength or some such.

As for China and India, both of them have large coastlines and will be dependent on resources from overseas (especially oil), so they will want fairly powerful navies; there may also be a component of post-colonialism there, wanting to "show off," if you will. A navy is good for that. They also have the resources to have both a large army and a large navy, if they choose, like the United States IOTL.

Fair points. The Chinese and Indian navies, though, might concentrate on patrolling the coast and defending against blockades rather than building a blue-water fleet, with the possible exception of escorts for oil tankers. They'd still want carriers for strategic depth, and that means they'd need carrier escorts too, but the bulk of their navies might be more in the nature of coast guards.

 

[iddt3]

One possible consequence of TTL that I don't think has been mentioned yet: Agricultural sustainability, specifically insect farming. In OTL, western (specifically American) culinary mores largely dominated, part of the pattern for newly empowered and aspirational middle classes and elites was to adopt an American style, meat heavy diet, especially the consumption of beef. The problem here is that intensive farming of beef is extremely environmentally destructive, and is a not insignificant component of climate change. It's also very resource inefficient, it takes about 10 lbs of feed to produce one lb of Beef, 5 lbs for one lb of Pork or 2.5 lbs for 1 lb of Chicken, making achieving the desired levels of consumption extremely problematic, however, with 1.7 lbs of feed, you can produce about 1lb of crickets. That lb of crickets is also far less labor and energy intensive to care for, and yields a much higher portion of usable protein per lb than farm animals.

In TTL with the much better position and plethora of countries which have charted their own path to Modernism, it's likely that Insect eating will never be as marginalized as it is OTL, and indeed that some counties will take to it on an Industrial level. This means that modernizing Africa and Asian countries have more local aspirational culinary models, models that are far more sustainable when applied to a world population of billions. Combined with more cross cultural fertilization normalizing insect consumption in the west, you have the potential to remove a major contributor to all sorts of environmental damage, as well as reducing a visible signal of wealth disparity.

This is probably squick for a number of readers here, but it really will make a large change for the better in TTL.

*edit* Said prosperty is also potentially rather bad in a number of culinary-ish areas as well, I think there is a very good chance we loose the Rhino and the Elephant ITTL (We might end up loosing them OTL), due to their uses in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the increased wealth and prestige of people practice such.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Fair points. The Chinese and Indian navies, though, might concentrate on patrolling the coast and defending against blockades rather than building a blue-water fleet, with the possible exception of escorts for oil tankers. They'd still want carriers for strategic depth, and that means they'd need carrier escorts too, but the bulk of their navies might be more in the nature of coast guards.

That's reasonable, but on the other hand you could say many of the same things about the United States; huge land area, lots of resources, big population (not as big as China or India, of course, but still pretty big); what do you need a big blue-water navy for? Yet we built one anyways. A lot of that was for "prestige" and protecting trade and so on, which is still going to be important for China and India here--after all, India is developing all sorts of interests around the Indian Ocean and even in the Americas some, both of them are going to require lots of raw materials from overseas (not just oil, but minerals and food and so on as well), and it really looks like they're going to be trading quite a bit back in exchange.

I could see them building a small blue-water core with a mostly brown-water fleet, yes; I could also see them going full blue-water and taking the attitude that they're going to keep anyone who could get to the brown-water away, like the United States did. Quite possibly they might shift from one to the other over time as they become richer and more capable of handling the latter.

 

[iddt3]

That's reasonable, but on the other hand you could say many of the same things about the United States; huge land area, lots of resources, big population (not as big as China or India, of course, but still pretty big); what do you need a big blue-water navy for? Yet we built one anyways. A lot of that was for "prestige" and protecting trade and so on, which is still going to be important for China and India here--after all, India is developing all sorts of interests around the Indian Ocean and even in the Americas some, both of them are going to require lots of raw materials from overseas (not just oil, but minerals and food and so on as well), and it really looks like they're going to be trading quite a bit back in exchange.

I could see them building a small blue-water core with a mostly brown-water fleet, yes; I could also see them going full blue-water and taking the attitude that they're going to keep anyone who could get to the brown-water away, like the United States did. Quite possibly they might shift from one to the other over time as they become richer and more capable of handling the latter.

Unlike India and China, the US has no meaningful threat from it's close neighbors, any threat that did come would necessarily have a large naval component. Not true for India, and China just had a massive land war, so doubly not true for them. India has a decent reason to build a Navy, but their naval needs are all relatively short ranged compared to the US, they only need to restrict the Indian Ocean.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Unlike India and China, the US has no meaningful threat from it's close neighbors, any threat that did come would necessarily have a large naval component. Not true for India, and China just had a massive land war, so doubly not true for them. India has a decent reason to build a Navy, but their naval needs are all relatively short ranged compared to the US, they only need to restrict the Indian Ocean.

And yet the United States (presently) also has a very large and well-equipped army, besides its navy. India and China may be poorer, but they're richer than OTL, and we are talking about the 1950s and 1960s here; they can afford to have an army more than large enough to defend against the other coming through the Himalayas (to say nothing of anyone else) and a good-sized navy.

 

[Badshah]

Unlike India and China, the US has no meaningful threat from it's close neighbors, any threat that did come would necessarily have a large naval component. Not true for India, and China just had a massive land war, so doubly not true for them. India has a decent reason to build a Navy, but their naval needs are all relatively short ranged compared to the US, they only need to restrict the Indian Ocean.

India has already conducted operations quite far away from the Indian Ocean. Strategically, it also has to count Madras and the Royal Navy as a threat even if they have good relations. In addition to this, India would be developing considerable financial and political interests in Burma, Fiji, Timor, Zanzibar, Kismayo, Rangoon, possibly Polynesia- it would need to eventually develop a blue water navy (and a considerable one at that) to meet these needs. I agree with Workable Goblin on this.

 

[Shevek23]

And I say Workable Goblin keeps pointing to OTL for an example, a timeline in which the elite of the USA aspired for--and achieved--effective world empire. Of course you need a huge navy with global reach (and such an air force too, when that becomes feasible) if your country will in fact be projecting power over the globe. It was a project of many generations; acquisition of distant bases in the Pacific and building and controlling the Panama Canal were all part of it. Manifest Destiny on a global scale.

ITTL these ambitions were present but frustrated. The Americans tried but failed to get control of Hawaii. The opportunity to acquire the various outposts the Spanish-American war gave us OTL never materialized--presumably because the will to make such opportunities happen was weakened by domestic politics that questioned such motives.

Attack that as ASB if you will; I think Jonathan did the spadework to justify it as plausible that we are dealing with a rather different United States here.

Without a network of distant bases overseas to deploy to, a huge and ultra-modern USN looks rather ridiculous sitting in US ports, does it not? Furthermore, the officers and sailors of the USN circa 1950 ITTL have no living memory of any sort of serious naval action; the Navy hasn't been involved in any sort of combat since the Lodge adventure in Latin America, where its role could not have been more than peripheral and quite inglorious compared to the potential threat the Mexicans and Central American governments could have posed on the high seas.

Admittedly, the more the Americans threw their weight around in the Caribbean, the more likely the British might possibly get involved--then the Goliath-versus-baby-Davids image that sort of gunboat diplomacy might conjure up is suddenly reversed. The true mission of the Navy, in the Lodge years, would have been to stand guard against possible British resentment. Since those years overlapped the Imperialist phase, one might guess the US and UK came closest to blows then--but there is no sign of that in the narrative and I conclude that actually there was a sort of unspoken Gentleman's Agreement between the two Anglo powers; Imperialists and Lodge's coalition saw eye to eye.

The British Imperialist era in general might well have triggered a whole round of arms races all across the world. I would guess it probably did--but then in the post-Imperialist years of recovery and reconciliation, I believe a general appeal to slack off and stand down made the diplomatic rounds, heeded most where it would be most necessary and effective--by the great powers with the greatest military potential, the USA and German Empire being first in line. I think if there were an analog to the Washington Naval Treaty we'd have heard of it, but in its place a diplomatic mood of "let's not push too hard unless a concrete threat emerges" would have prevailed over the following decades. Big ultra-modern navies cost a lot and are of no use unless an actual war breaks out; our OTL investment in them says we believe one will, on some scale or other anyway.

The timeline is clearly backing away from the idea that war is a normal and inevitable way to settle differences, and toward the belief it is a barbaric catastrophe, which can be avoided by intelligent people of good will. By no means is it a world where that proposition is proven and everyone's a pacifist, but it is a world where a non-pacifist who seems bent on disrupting the world peace on a grand scale will be observed and shamed, and if that doesn't end their career of war-mongering, the alarm at any rate would be sounded before they could pull together a serious threat.

Therefore I figure both Germany and the USA have navies that are modest compared to OTL, and the powers most likely to go in for wild construction binges are those that are somewhat insecure in their position and lacking in deep stability, such as Ma China--and the cost of these binges may well be a part of what destabilizes them and leaves them vulnerable, to internal revolution or defeat by a foreign power. Americans and Germans, and even to an extent Russians and Indians, know that if some contingency arises where they actually need to use the sort of power a Navy represents, they will probably be in alliance with the other Great Powers, Britain particularly, and not shooting at each other.

So, keeping the core of a modern fleet in being is quite enough; if a situation arises where it is actually needed, most likely there will be time to build up from that basis, and the danger will be shared with the other great powers, as will the initial losses.

Unless the USA maintains good relations with the remaining imperial powers, there's no ports overseas for the magnificent fleet to show the flag in!

 

[othyrsyde]

I say this with no disrespect meant for anyone involved in this debate. It's something to consider, and I'm sure Jonathan appreciates all the enthusiasm and thought all of you have contributed, but we've had several updates go by and they've generated almost no discussion. They're getting drowned out by this debate, which has almost nothing to do with the Congolese transitioning to independence or the formation of states in the Pacific without colonialism of OTL, which is really quite fascinating to think about. So please let's worry about the naval capabilities of the Great Powers when the subject actually comes up. Again sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but this has been carrying on for several pages now.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

One possible consequence of TTL that I don't think has been mentioned yet: Agricultural sustainability, specifically insect farming. In OTL, western (specifically American) culinary mores largely dominated, part of the pattern for newly empowered and aspirational middle classes and elites was to adopt an American style, meat heavy diet, especially the consumption of beef... In TTL with the much better position and plethora of countries which have charted their own path to Modernism, it's likely that Insect eating will never be as marginalized as it is OTL, and indeed that some counties will take to it on an Industrial level.

I hadn't thought about that, and you could be right. The West is still relatively richer and Western things will still have the cachet of modernity (not to mention that there are several parts of Africa where beef production is traditional) so there will be some movement toward Western consumption patterns, but there will also be more development of traditional food sources, and for some, using them may even become a matter of national pride. That could very well lead to industrial production of the insects that are traditionally eaten.

I don't see this spreading to the West very quickly, though. Based on your figures (which seem about right), there isn't that much difference between the efficiency of chicken production and cricket production, so there won't be a lot of pressure in wealthy countries to switch from chicken to cricket, and food prejudices are strong. I'd expect some penetration to occur, but in the present-day West ITTL, insects will probably still be specialty foods served in urban ethnic restaurants or small markets in ethnic neighborhoods.

BTW, I've eaten insects in Africa and Mexico, and they're pretty good if prepared well (although the ones in Mexico were way too deep-fried).

Said prosperty is also potentially rather bad in a number of culinary-ish areas as well, I think there is a very good chance we loose the Rhino and the Elephant ITTL (We might end up loosing them OTL), due to their uses in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the increased wealth and prestige of people practice such.

On the other hand, stronger and more prosperous African states will be better able to protect wildlife and will have more economic alternatives to harvesting it. There are many environmental consequences to TTL, but some of them may balance out. (See also: greater industrial production versus earlier demographic shift, although in that case I expect the impact of higher living standards to exceed that of reduced population).

That's reasonable, but on the other hand you could say many of the same things about the United States; huge land area, lots of resources, big population (not as big as China or India, of course, but still pretty big); what do you need a big blue-water navy for? Yet we built one anyways... India is developing all sorts of interests around the Indian Ocean and even in the Americas some, both of them are going to require lots of raw materials from overseas (not just oil, but minerals and food and so on as well), and it really looks like they're going to be trading quite a bit back in exchange.

India has already conducted operations quite far away from the Indian Ocean. Strategically, it also has to count Madras and the Royal Navy as a threat even if they have good relations. In addition to this, India would be developing considerable financial and political interests in Burma, Fiji, Timor, Zanzibar, Kismayo, Rangoon, possibly Polynesia- it would need to eventually develop a blue water navy (and a considerable one at that) to meet these needs.

All fair points. With associated states overseas, India will need to patrol the Indian Ocean, which means a blue-water navy, albeit not necessarily one with global reach. Its military planners will also have an institutional memory of the siege, and won't want ever again to be in a position where the coasts are blockaded - which again means a blue-water force strong enough to keep attackers at a distance. I'm still skeptical about China, which will be very much focused on land threats, but you've convinced me on India.

Anyway, this is the last I'll say about the matter for the time being - I do appreciate all the discussion and thought, but I agree with othyrsyde that this topic has reached its sell-by date. I'll probably return to the subject when I take up the political development of the US and other great powers in the 1960s and 70s.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I say this with no disrespect meant for anyone involved in this debate. It's something to consider, and I'm sure Jonathan appreciates all the enthusiasm and thought all of you have contributed, but we've had several updates go by and they've generated almost no discussion. They're getting drowned out by this debate, which has almost nothing to do with the Congolese transitioning to independence or the formation of states in the Pacific without colonialism of OTL, which is really quite fascinating to think about. So please let's worry about the naval capabilities of the Great Powers when the subject actually comes up. Again sorry if I'm coming off as rude, but this has been carrying on for several pages now.

I apologize, it's just that I don't have very much to contribute to those topics besides agreeing that they're quite neat, whereas I do have something to contribute to the other. So naturally I write comments about the one and not the other.

On the other hand, stronger and more prosperous African states will be better able to protect wildlife and will have more economic alternatives to harvesting it. There are many environmental consequences to TTL, but some of them may balance out. (See also: greater industrial production versus earlier demographic shift, although in that case I expect the impact of higher living standards to exceed that of reduced population).

Additionally, they'll likely be more interested in doing so. Just like in the United States, Europe, and Japan, once countries get rich any domestic environmental protection movements they have get reasonably influential. And more countries here are rich, so...

 

[iddt3]

I apologize, it's just that I don't have very much to contribute to those topics besides agreeing that they're quite neat, whereas I do have something to contribute to the other. So naturally I write comments about the one and not the other.



Additionally, they'll likely be more interested in doing so. Just like in the United States, Europe, and Japan, once countries get rich any domestic environmental protection movements they have get reasonably influential. And more countries here are rich, so...

It does mean that, eventually. But in the mean time, the pressure on the wilderness areas will be ramping up much more quickly than it did OTL, and there are still a number of states that are quite weak and may look to Ivory and Horn exports as an economic lifeline. It took a generations to really become aware of the consequences of wrecking our own backyard, and we've had a conservation movement since the TR. Here, with the much more global pressures of demand and development, I can see more ecological damage done more quickly than OTL. Of course, once the consensus emerges that this is happening, the response will be far more effective and less paternalistic than OTL, and better long term, but some species that survived by the skin of their teeth might not here.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It does mean that, eventually. But in the mean time, the pressure on the wilderness areas will be ramping up much more quickly than it did OTL, and there are still a number of states that are quite weak and may look to Ivory and Horn exports as an economic lifeline. It took a generations to really become aware of the consequences of wrecking our own backyard, and we've had a conservation movement since the TR. Here, with the much more global pressures of demand and development, I can see more ecological damage done more quickly than OTL. Of course, once the consensus emerges that this is happening, the response will be far more effective and less paternalistic than OTL, and better long term, but some species that survived by the skin of their teeth might not here.

Well, I think it's been a consensus for a while that the overall higher level of development and living standards will mean more damage in the short run; hard to see how it wouldn't, given the salient examples of pretty much every country to industrialize ever (as an aside, it's kind of weird that no one ever does that with much care paid to the environment, but that's just part of the human condition, I guess...). I was just adducing to Johnathan's statement that stronger, richer, and more politically stable African states will also have the right political conditions for native environmental movements to grow up, so they'll face more internal pressure to do so than they mostly have IOTL.

We've already seen conservation movements in the West African states influenced by the Male, and I would expect that the Great Lakes states probably have their own interests in conservation. East Africa and the Congo will probably have issues, though; they have a longer row to hoe to get to the position where many people will care more about the environment than the economy.

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

It does mean that, eventually. But in the mean time, the pressure on the wilderness areas will be ramping up much more quickly than it did OTL, and there are still a number of states that are quite weak and may look to Ivory and Horn exports as an economic lifeline. It took a generations to really become aware of the consequences of wrecking our own backyard, and we've had a conservation movement since the TR. Here, with the much more global pressures of demand and development, I can see more ecological damage done more quickly than OTL.

Well, I think it's been a consensus for a while that the overall higher level of development and living standards will mean more damage in the short run... I was just adducing to Johnathan's statement that stronger, richer, and more politically stable African states will also have the right political conditions for native environmental movements to grow up, so they'll face more internal pressure to do so than they mostly have IOTL.

TTL is likely to have two tracks of environmental issues. The poorer, weaker countries are also the less industrialized, so they'll have less air and water pollution, but more bushmeat harvesting, poaching and habitat destruction through overgrazing and overfarming. The richer countries are already well above subsistence level and use more advanced agricultural methods, so they won't have to worry about bushmeat or heavy deforestation, but by the time their environmental movements are fully ramped up, they'll have a lot of cleaning up to do. The Great Lakes commonwealths, where industrialization is sparse but which are strong states with a Kerala development model and a strongly communal ethic, will be exceptions, and may well have the best environmental conditions in the 1960s and 70s.

I suspect that Workable Goblin is right about East and Central Africa being the hardest hit in terms of habitat destruction. Some of these states will also want to industrialize quickly, and they'll do so without much concern for the environment because their first priority will be lifting people out of poverty. I expect rhinos and elephants to survive, because their range includes enough rich countries with the capacity to prevent poaching, but bonobos are in trouble. Gorillas too, outside Rwanda and Gabon.

Shooting for an update this weekend, but keep in mind that in the United States, this particular weekend includes Monday.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The richer countries are already well above subsistence level and use more advanced agricultural methods, so they won't have to worry about bushmeat or heavy deforestation, but by the time their environmental movements are fully ramped up, they'll have a lot of cleaning up to do.

Deforestation? Umm... What you mean is they've already done it and lived with the consequences. Remember that most of Europe and eastern North America were pretty thoroughly forested before farming took hold.

As for bushmeat. Hmmm... OK, my friends call it venison, duck/geese and fish, and yes, there's regulated seasons, but how does 'wild game' really differ from 'bush meat', aside from cultural connotations?

 

[Maltaran]

Deforestation? Umm... What you mean is they've already done it and lived with the consequences. Remember that most of Europe and eastern North America were pretty thoroughly forested before farming took hold.

As for bushmeat. Hmmm... OK, my friends call it venison, duck/geese and fish, and yes, there's regulated seasons, but how does 'wild game' really differ from 'bush meat', aside from cultural connotations?

IIRC, "bush meat" generally means monkeys.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

IIRC, "bush meat" generally means monkeys.

In a context of HIV it certainly does. But it has been used for fruit bats in the current Ebola epidemic, and the new species of rodent found in South East Asia...

 

[Deleted member 67076]

What is the World Population so far? Has there been/Will there be a Green Revolution?

 

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Deforestation? Umm... What you mean is they've already done it and lived with the consequences. Remember that most of Europe and eastern North America were pretty thoroughly forested before farming took hold.

As for bushmeat. Hmmm... OK, my friends call it venison, duck/geese and fish, and yes, there's regulated seasons, but how does 'wild game' really differ from 'bush meat', aside from cultural connotations?

Fair point about deforestation, although in Europe and the Americas, it happened quite a bit more slowly, didn't it? The poorer part of Africa is still on the steep side of the demographic curve at this point, which means that expansion of agricultural land will happen faster than it would with a slowly-growing population.

Bushmeat: my understanding is that it's the hunting of animals that aren't traditionally hunted, without the kind of management practiced by either traditional hunting cultures or modern states. But as with any loosely-defined term, there's a lot of room for mileage to vary.

What is the World Population so far? Has there been/Will there be a Green Revolution?

At a guess, the population in 1950-60 is a bit higher than OTL, because the global south started its demographic transition earlier, but will fall behind by 1980 or so due to the same countries finishing their transition earlier. Say 3.2 billion in 1960, 4.2 billion in 1980, 5.7 billion today.

And with as many or more people working on agricultural production methods ITTL as IOTL - they've been working on improved cereal crops since the late 19th century - a Green Revolution seems very likely.