I read a book recently that asserted that the 20th Century was about the struggle between aggressive nationalism, authoritarian socialism and liberal democracy and the story of the 20th Century was that liberal democracy won. Well, that got me thinking how else the story of the 20th Century might have ended, and I came up with nine possible endings (assuming a post-1900 POD). I've ranked them in order of worst first, best last.
EXTINCTION
Nuclear or biological warfare kills everyone.
ARMAGEDDON
Nuclear or biological warfare destroys civilisation. The world ends the 20th Century at a pre-industrial level of culture.
ARMAGEDDON LITE
Nuclear or biological warfare smashes the economies of most industrialised nations, and degrades the environment of the planet, but industrial civilisation survives.
IRON HEEL
The whole world comes under the rule of authoritarian dictatorships of one form or another. There might be a single world-straddling dictatorship, two or three rivals, or many independent states. In any case, liberal ideas of democracy and freedom have gone extinct.
EMPIRES
It is possible to imagine a 20th Century in which ideas of national, cultural and racial superiority still dominate the developed world in the year 2000. The forms this could take might range from empires in which the "natives" have a good deal of autonomy but are still taught to consider themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown, to fascist empires less extremist than that of Nazi Germany.
CYBERPUNK
The free market, either in its liberal or authoritarian forms, is more successful (for example, China might industrialise at the same time as Japan). There is a great deal more prosperity mid-century than in OTL. This has a number of results. First, environmental degradation happens earlier, happens quicker and has larger effects. All the problems that environmental pessimists envisage us having to face in the next 50 years have already happened by the year 2000. The result is a declining world economy and increasing conflict between nations and peoples. Secondly, technology has become more advanced. Thirdly, the world triumph of the free market has led to greater extremes of wealth and poverty, more powerful corporations, more selfishness, and the decline of traditional cultures in the face of globalisation.
COLD WAR
In this world the liberal market democracy model of society is still in competition with an alternative model or models. The alternative might be North Korea on a larger scale, economically bankrupt but immune to invasion due to the possession of WMDs and immune to internal change due to a ruthlessly repressive government. Or it might be economically outperforming the democracies (perhaps it's sitting on most of the world's oil, or has made some major breakthrough in science or engineering, or has an extremely capable leadership).
LIBERAL HEGEMONY
Our world, basically. There may be plenty of dictatorships and authoritarian states around but the major powers are either liberal market democracies or at least heading in that direction.
PEACE AND PROSPERITY
Every state that matters is a liberal market democracy. Although there are richer countries and poorer countries, no nation is so poor as to have to worry about famine. The resultant greater prosperity has caused environmental damage but solutions are in place to minimise it and to deal with the consequences.
This seems pretty implausible. You would have to dispose of imperialism, fascism and communism, end world poverty and somehow create an economy that enables economic growth without harming the environment. It would require leaders who are far sighted, wise and courageous.
Some things that might help - either the Bolsheviks fail to take power in the 1917 revolution or at least someone other than Stalin comes to power in the 1920s. The Great War lasts longer and Germany loses more decisively: result, the German people accept their defeat with good grace rather than blaming it on a Jewish conspiracy, the Allies take pity on a starving and ruined Germany and the Treaty of Versailles is more sensible. The League of Nations works. The temptation of protectionism is resisted during the Depression (if Japan could trade with the USA it would be less likely to attack it). Decolonisation is a more gradual process (the lack of a Second World War would help here) and corrupt third-world dictatorships are not supported by developed nations (the lack of a Cold War would help here). More co-operation between the Great Powers (this would be much easier with no fascist or communist states).
Some cultural changes would also be helpful - such as a more generous-spirited evangelical Christianity and scientists having a higher status in our society (so they are not ignored when they warn of, for example, the dangers of global warming). And I think a willingness to at least acknowledge the problem of population growth would be a great help.
So, I think we are living in the second-best subset of possible 21st Centuries with a POD post-1900! I think that's pretty lucky.
Have I missed any possibilities?
EXTINCTION
Nuclear or biological warfare kills everyone.
ARMAGEDDON
Nuclear or biological warfare destroys civilisation. The world ends the 20th Century at a pre-industrial level of culture.
ARMAGEDDON LITE
Nuclear or biological warfare smashes the economies of most industrialised nations, and degrades the environment of the planet, but industrial civilisation survives.
IRON HEEL
The whole world comes under the rule of authoritarian dictatorships of one form or another. There might be a single world-straddling dictatorship, two or three rivals, or many independent states. In any case, liberal ideas of democracy and freedom have gone extinct.
EMPIRES
It is possible to imagine a 20th Century in which ideas of national, cultural and racial superiority still dominate the developed world in the year 2000. The forms this could take might range from empires in which the "natives" have a good deal of autonomy but are still taught to consider themselves as loyal subjects of the Crown, to fascist empires less extremist than that of Nazi Germany.
CYBERPUNK
The free market, either in its liberal or authoritarian forms, is more successful (for example, China might industrialise at the same time as Japan). There is a great deal more prosperity mid-century than in OTL. This has a number of results. First, environmental degradation happens earlier, happens quicker and has larger effects. All the problems that environmental pessimists envisage us having to face in the next 50 years have already happened by the year 2000. The result is a declining world economy and increasing conflict between nations and peoples. Secondly, technology has become more advanced. Thirdly, the world triumph of the free market has led to greater extremes of wealth and poverty, more powerful corporations, more selfishness, and the decline of traditional cultures in the face of globalisation.
COLD WAR
In this world the liberal market democracy model of society is still in competition with an alternative model or models. The alternative might be North Korea on a larger scale, economically bankrupt but immune to invasion due to the possession of WMDs and immune to internal change due to a ruthlessly repressive government. Or it might be economically outperforming the democracies (perhaps it's sitting on most of the world's oil, or has made some major breakthrough in science or engineering, or has an extremely capable leadership).
LIBERAL HEGEMONY
Our world, basically. There may be plenty of dictatorships and authoritarian states around but the major powers are either liberal market democracies or at least heading in that direction.
PEACE AND PROSPERITY
Every state that matters is a liberal market democracy. Although there are richer countries and poorer countries, no nation is so poor as to have to worry about famine. The resultant greater prosperity has caused environmental damage but solutions are in place to minimise it and to deal with the consequences.
This seems pretty implausible. You would have to dispose of imperialism, fascism and communism, end world poverty and somehow create an economy that enables economic growth without harming the environment. It would require leaders who are far sighted, wise and courageous.
Some things that might help - either the Bolsheviks fail to take power in the 1917 revolution or at least someone other than Stalin comes to power in the 1920s. The Great War lasts longer and Germany loses more decisively: result, the German people accept their defeat with good grace rather than blaming it on a Jewish conspiracy, the Allies take pity on a starving and ruined Germany and the Treaty of Versailles is more sensible. The League of Nations works. The temptation of protectionism is resisted during the Depression (if Japan could trade with the USA it would be less likely to attack it). Decolonisation is a more gradual process (the lack of a Second World War would help here) and corrupt third-world dictatorships are not supported by developed nations (the lack of a Cold War would help here). More co-operation between the Great Powers (this would be much easier with no fascist or communist states).
Some cultural changes would also be helpful - such as a more generous-spirited evangelical Christianity and scientists having a higher status in our society (so they are not ignored when they warn of, for example, the dangers of global warming). And I think a willingness to at least acknowledge the problem of population growth would be a great help.
So, I think we are living in the second-best subset of possible 21st Centuries with a POD post-1900! I think that's pretty lucky.
Have I missed any possibilities?
