The Worst and Most Dystopian World Possible

[Arkenfolm]

Well, if the ARW fails and the French Revolution is both significantly delayed and curbed, then (very broadly and roughly speaking) the legacy of the Enlightenment is going to be much weaker in the subsequent 19th Century. As an example, I can see Republicanism in TTL not only being much weaker, but developing in conflict with what OTL would consider other socially progressive values (abolitionism, social welfare, gender equality, etc).

The problem with a lot of those ideals is they're basically Pandora's box. You can't put the ideas back in. You can defeat the French Revolution, but if you get the same conditions which produced it (inevitable), can you prevent it again?

Plus there's always enlightened absolutism for continuing to advance Enlightenment ideals.

Make the colonization process slow and steady, perhaps, and put it under the oversight of the elite, who teach the natives the ways of imperialist oppression?

It isn't like they needed much teaching, since OTL dictators like Macias Nguema and Mobutu brought out the worst tendencies of African rule and applied it to "modern" states. For the North Americans, they seemed to have done pretty well in their own right by how they treated subdued people. The Sioux in particular seem to have done well in abusing tribes who submitted to them, so much that the Pawnee chose to voluntarily relocate to Indian Territory in large part because of them. Although of course the rule of the Sioux was far different and occurred in far different contexts than the aforementioned African dictators, they still had the capacity to be plenty nasty. How would that apply in a modern industrial/post-industrial society when mass murder and brutal exploitation is easier than ever? I don't know.

OTL is rather horrifying when you look at it a certain way.

I mean:
China. Pretty much always the largest and often the most sophisticated state for the past 2000 years, periodically goes through massive civil war and/or foreign invasion which routinely kills tens or hundreds of millions of people even in the Middle Ages.
The Taping Rebellion and Mongol invasions both killed more people than the First World War, and depending on the estimates the former may have even exceeded the second in total body count.

Basically right. OTL has huge amounts of dystopic moments.

China is of special note since basically all of the most deadly wars of all time involved China in some form or another, and Chinese made up the majority of the death toll. China might as well have been a dystopia considering the hard life of the vast majority of the people and as you mentioned, periodic warfare which kills millions. I'd add natural disasters too, of which the most deadly tend to involve China (earthquakes, floods, etc.). There's also the 1938 Huang He flood which shows that these natural disasters of insane death tolls can be induced artificially. There's also been studies showing that hydroelectric power can play a role in earthquakes, such as the 2008 Sichuan quake.

The OP rules out natural disasters, but if you have people frequently triggering them and completely ignoring environmental concerns because of the international order, that's a good step towards dystopia, since in places like China or India, you're bound to be easily able to kill thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The problem with a lot of those ideals is they're basically Pandora's box. You can't put the ideas back in. You can defeat the French Revolution, but if you get the same conditions which produced it (inevitable), can you prevent it again?

The French Revolution isn't just defeated, it starts later and far more mildly; as such, the box doesn't really open TTL, at least not as much.

Agreed enlightened absolutism will last longer, which is part of what I meant about republicanism being more divorced from social progress TTL.

 

[CountPeter]

The French Revolution isn't just defeated, it starts later and far more mildly; as such, the box doesn't really open TTL, at least not as much.

Agreed enlightened absolutism will last longer, which is part of what I meant about republicanism being more divorced from social progress TTL.

There are some people like Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who think that global politics would have have been much more free had the egalitarianism of the French Revolution had not happened, but from a liberal perspective.
https://mises.org/library/liberty-or-equality-challenge-our-time

I don't fully agree with him or agree with him to any large extent (particularly as an anti-monarchist), but he does do a decent job at linking the modern totalitarian mindset to democracy. Other people have expanded on the work to suggest that even modern authoritarian monarchies (e.g. Thailand or Saudi Arabia) are bound to militaries which ignore liberty or justify themselves from a egalitarian standpoint.


Also whilst totally ASB, I would love to see somebody pull of a tl where 1) Enlightened Absolutism is the norm and 2) Some equivalent of Objectivism becomes popular in these states, leading to an art-deco monarchist Europe.
Screw it, I don't care if it is ASB. I would still read it

 

[Skallagrim]

There are some people like Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who think that global politics would have have been much more free had the egalitarianism of the French Revolution had not happened, but from a liberal perspective.
https://mises.org/library/liberty-or-equality-challenge-our-time

I don't fully agree with him or agree with him to any large extent (particularly as an anti-monarchist), but he does do a decent job at linking the modern totalitarian mindset to democracy. Other people have expanded on the work to suggest that even modern authoritarian monarchies (e.g. Thailand or Saudi Arabia) are bound to militaries which ignore liberty or justify themselves from a egalitarian standpoint.

This is actually very interesting as a starting idea for AH scenarios. We still (even subconsciously) think in terms of 'whig history', i.e. something like democracy is the natural end point of historical development, and it's the best possible system etc. Thinkers like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, whether you agree with their own preferences or not, really tag on some critical notes-- and I like that. If you're not familar with his work yet, I'd like to recommend José Ortega y Gasset and Nicolás Gómez Dávila, too. Like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, those two are often dumped in with the rather quixotic collection of reactionaries, traditionalists etc. -- but in both cases, people often miss that they were profoundly (classical) liberal writers, and that (unlike some authority-loving reactionaries) they really felt (José Ortega y Gasset in particular) that a more traditional order would be better equipped to secure freedom and prosperity than mass democracy. (And again, whether one agrees or not, there is something to be said for the notion that mass democracy will devolve into populism.)

In any case, I was surprised to see somone mentioning Kuehnelt-Leddihn, since he's often fairly unknown, but this is going off topic, so I'm cutting myself off here.

Also whilst totally ASB, I would love to see somebody pull of a tl where 1) Enlightened Absolutism is the norm and 2) Some equivalent of Objectivism becomes popular in these states, leading to an art-deco monarchist Europe.
Screw it, I don't care if it is ASB. I would still read it

Of course, considering the nature of hostility between various ideologies, I can assure you that there are certainly people who would consider anything involving Objectivism to automatically be the worst and most terrible dystopia thay can imagine. Personally, I don't think Objectivism (or something almost exactly like it) is really something that'll take of in a hypothetical "Kuehnelt-Leddihn World" (since Objectivism was basically inspired by Rand's burning hatred of anything collectivist, which... would not actually be there in that ATL). But you could easily have something (almost exacly) like the Art Deco easthetic becoming popular, so you'd have what you want anyway.

Personally, if we suppose that those monarchies you imagine are indeed dedicated to being basically decent and respecting everyone's rights, such a world sounds in no way dystopic to me. (I get the impression that @John Fredrick Parker imagined the 'illiberal republics' to be the bad guys in his world, so maybe that could make it dystopic? Would be a cool turnaround of the almost universal "Good Republic versus Evil Empire" meme.)

 

[HIM Dogson]

Also whilst totally ASB, I would love to see somebody pull of a tl where 1) Enlightened Absolutism is the norm and 2) Some equivalent of Objectivism becomes popular in these states, leading to an art-deco monarchist Europe.
Screw it, I don't care if it is ASB. I would still read it

Enlightened Absolutism and Objectivism is an oxymoron. Sorry, no dice.

 

[Derek Pullem]

It's interesting but the "Years of Rice and Salt" although it starts with a super plague ends up with a super massive world war. Although to be honest it's not what I would call a total dystopia

 

[Armot]

I remember a B Munro map with a Seventh Assyrian Empire, or something like that. It was pretty dystopian.

 

[Skallagrim]

It's interesting but the "Years of Rice and Salt" although it starts with a super plague ends up with a super massive world war. Although to be honest it's not what I would call a total dystopia

I wouldn't call it a dystopia at all, by and large. Certain terrible things happen, but in part, they stand out because of narrative choices. A worse plague as the POD, a big war at the end. The world shaped throughout the book is hardly dystopic.

Not to accuse you of such thoughts (and please don't take this comment that way), but it occurs to me that there might be something like a cultural bias to view a world without one's own (overarching) culture as being more dystopic than OTL? For instance, I suspect Westerners will look at a world where the West is killed by a big plague as inherently dystopic, and they'll often focus on the good things that world lacks (things developed by the West in OTL) while perhaps overlooking good things that develop in that ATL that never came about in OTL.

This is no anti-Western rant. I'm sure many people from China would feel the same about a China-less ATL, or people from the islamic world would view a world where a plague depopulates all muslim lands as inherently dystopic.

Many people on this site will probably correct for such preconceived biases, but it's a tendency I think really exists.

I remember a B Munro map with a Seventh Assyrian Empire, or something like that. It was pretty dystopian.

I think the one you mean is one of the covers for a GURPS scenario, interpreted more realistically: Nergal. (The related map is in the post below it. Direct link here, for your clicking convenience.) I was looking for that one just now, specifically because of the idea that occurred to me regarding the above post by @Derek Pullem. That is: this, too, is a world wherein the various cultures we genereally consider as precursors to anything like Western culture just never get to arise... but in this specific case it really sucks, because of all the human sacrifice catching on.

In a way, this is a counterargument to what I wrote above: while there is probably a bias in favour of one's own culture/civilisation, worlds can also be imagined where alternative cultural characteristics win out, which are unquestionably horrid from our perspective (and I daresay from an objective perspective).

This particular world, indeed, seems more plausible to me than the "eternal cold war" described in the OP... and indeed, this is pretty damn horrible.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I think Kim Stanley Robinson just wanted to explore an alternate space for non European cultures to mature. I wasn't really associating the loss of Europe as Dystopic (although the loss of a significant fraction of the world's population can't really be called anything else!) but it was the OP's comments about a never ending war that triggered the memory of that novel.

Certainly a world where artillery is used to reduce the height of Everest so that the highest point on Earth is in Dar-al-Islam is pretty dytopic in any sense.

 

[Rex Romanum]

Egyptian South America? Interesting to say the least. And is Antarctica settled?!

That map is based on (and mostly taken from) this map by rvbomally on deviantart, which in turn is inspired by this timeline by our fellow (now deceased) member robertp6165

And no, Antartica is divided by those empires mainly as part of dick-measuring contest and only occasionally visited by scientists and research teams.

 

[CountPeter]

This is actually very interesting as a starting idea for AH scenarios. We still (even subconsciously) think in terms of 'whig history', i.e. something like democracy is the natural end point of historical development, and it's the best possible system etc. Thinkers like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, whether you agree with their own preferences or not, really tag on some critical notes-- and I like that. If you're not familar with his work yet, I'd like to recommend José Ortega y Gasset and Nicolás Gómez Dávila, too. Like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, those two are often dumped in with the rather quixotic collection of reactionaries, traditionalists etc. -- but in both cases, people often miss that they were profoundly (classical) liberal writers, and that (unlike some authority-loving reactionaries) they really felt (José Ortega y Gasset in particular) that a more traditional order would be better equipped to secure freedom and prosperity than mass democracy. (And again, whether one agrees or not, there is something to be said for the notion that mass democracy will devolve into populism.)

In any case, I was surprised to see somone mentioning Kuehnelt-Leddihn, since he's often fairly unknown, but this is going off topic, so I'm cutting myself off here.

They certainly are interesting from a historical development perspective. Every TL on here, even ones where the "enlightenment" equivalent comes from a non-western source seem to go with the whit history to an extent that often doesn't make sense.

Of course, considering the nature of hostility between various ideologies, I can assure you that there are certainly people who would consider anything involving Objectivism to automatically be the worst and most terrible dystopia thay can imagine. Personally, I don't think Objectivism (or something almost exactly like it) is really something that'll take of in a hypothetical "Kuehnelt-Leddihn World" (since Objectivism was basically inspired by Rand's burning hatred of anything collectivist, which... would not actually be there in that ATL). But you could easily have something (almost exacly) like the Art Deco easthetic becoming popular, so you'd have what you want anyway.

Oh yeah, I am not saying that an Objectivist equivalent would or neccesarily could exist (I am not entirely of the oppinion it couldn't appear though depending on what "objectivist like" could involve), but that the Randian attitude compiled with monarchism and an Art Deco aesthetic would be awesome. It is worth noting however that a world in which liberal thought is dominated by enlightened absolutism rather than democratic trends doesn't neccesarily have to forgo any appearance of collectivism. Once again touching perhaps on ASB levels (largely due to my lacking knowledge in this area comparitively to others) but I could see republicanism being associated with Cromwellian order being enough of a red flag to attract many of the influential enlightenment thinkers away from a republic and looking more towards monarchies.

Personally, if we suppose that those monarchies you imagine are indeed dedicated to being basically decent and respecting everyone's rights, such a world sounds in no way dystopic to me. (I get the impression that @John Fredrick Parker imagined the 'illiberal republics' to be the bad guys in his world, so maybe that could make it dystopic? Would be a cool turnaround of the almost universal "Good Republic versus Evil Empire" meme.)

I AM SO ON BOARD FOR THIS!

Enlightened Absolutism and Objectivism is an oxymoron. Sorry, no dice.

Depends on what you mean by Objectivism. Although I am hardly an expert, everything I have read on it, including Ayn Rand's works mesh better with a Kuehnelt-Leddihn esque monarchy (note though that he was catholic) than a republic, and particularly a democratic one which always seemed oddly altruistic of Ayn Rand.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Depends on what you mean by Objectivism. Although I am hardly an expert, everything I have read on it, including Ayn Rand's works mesh better with a Kuehnelt-Leddihn esque monarchy (note though that he was catholic) than a republic, and particularly a democratic one which always seemed oddly altruistic of Ayn Rand

Oh, it's possible to have an Objectivist monarchy, although such a thing has never been tried. It just wouldn't be an enlightened monarchy.

 

[Concavenator]

(I get the impression that @John Fredrick Parker imagined the 'illiberal republics' to be the bad guys in his world, so maybe that could make it dystopic? Would be a cool turnaround of the almost universal "Good Republic versus Evil Empire" meme.)

That's sort of what happened in What Madness is This?, where the hideously evil Republican Union is pitted against an authoritarian but relatively decent Napoleonic Empire.

 

[CountPeter]

Oh, it's possible to have an Objectivist monarchy, although such a thing has never been tried. It just wouldn't be an enlightened monarchy.

Why not? Enlightened Absolutism drew enlightenment values as its justification, just as Objectivism does.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Why not? Enlightened Absolutism drew enlightenment values as its justification, just as Objectivism does.

Enlightened Absolutism used actual enlightenment values. Objectivism took enlightenment values and bastardized them beyond recognition. Any King who doesn't recognize his people's right to life is no king at all.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Enlightened Absolutism used actual enlightenment values. Objectivism took enlightenment values and bastardized them beyond recognition. Any King who doesn't recognize his people's right to life is no king at all.

Although you can justify Objectivism with Enlightenment philosophy, by a monarch imposing Objectivism it seems like you'd be making an environment ripe for either peasant revolts or a pretender to rise in opposition. As seen in Russia, these peasant revolts can back any royal, including royals who are long since dead or never even existed.

Not to mention Objectivism's thought regarding the role of the state and an absolute monarchy seem very hard to reconcile, but I suppose no more different than an absolute monarchy voluntarily introducing a constitutional monarchy or something. Some Neoreactionary writers that follow Hans Hermann Hoppe bring up an interesting synthesis between monarchy and libertarianism/Objectivism. Very repulsive, granted, as you might expect, but clearly people have thought of this issue.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Although you can justify Objectivism with Enlightenment philosophy, by a monarch imposing Objectivism it seems like you'd be making an environment ripe for either peasant revolts or a pretender to rise in opposition. As seen in Russia, these peasant revolts can back any royal, including royals who are long since dead or never even existed.

Not to mention Objectivism's thought regarding the role of the state and an absolute monarchy seem very hard to reconcile, but I suppose no more different than an absolute monarchy voluntarily introducing a constitutional monarchy or something. Some Neoreactionary writers that follow Hans Hermann Hoppe bring up an interesting synthesis between monarchy and libertarianism/Objectivism. Very repulsive, granted, as you might expect, but clearly people have thought of this issue.

True; I always thought of an Objectivist monarchy as featuring a symbolic King with industrialist nobility, and "serfs" who have no rights, because giving the moochers rights would of course be Communist. Basically a feudal supposedly meritocratic state where it is de facto hereditary.

 

[Balaur]

A pagan Romewank would create a nasty dystopia in Europe and North Africa. Decadent rulers, ruthless militarism, gruesome deaths of slaves for the entertainment of the masses, you've got it all for an utterly horrifying society-just have the Romans crank it up to eleven instead of gradually toning it down, and have them spread it across the known world until they butt up against other, similarly horrible empires operating out of China and India. Eventually, improving maritime technology lets them explore the New World, which is dominated by societies that make the OTL Aztecs look like kittens in comparision.

 

[Urcea]

One interesting possibility is the industrial revolution just doesn't happen. Or even the industrial revolution and the French revolution is stillborn.

European civilization had reached a dead end in the seventeenth century and was stagnating

[citation needed]

Hard to see how your later situation or really anything with your PoDs leads to crippling dystopia.

 

[Tanc49]

30 YW goes way worse, spreads across more of Europe. Given that each side considers the other heretic, they find no issue taking slaves.
Of course, the problem you'll find is that a lot of things making life worse in Europe will make things better in the rest of the world...

You'll have to see what you consider worse. Life as a peasant in the XIXth century wasn't that bad really. Not much worse than spending 10hrs a day in front of a computer for a wage.
Also, what is worse? I would consider an American-type liberalism extended to the entire world, as if the world had stopped in 1900 an horrible dystopia. However a lot of people would find that great