What is the easiest POD to have a more technologically advanced timeline?
- Thread starter Andrela
- Start date
Avoid World War I. Many people were killed there and the turmoil following, so buttefly it, WWII and the Cold War, there you have it.
I disagree. Both World Wars saw huge investment and advanced new technologies. I think technology would probably be 15-20 years behind if you simply remove those wars and the cold war without replacing them. Especially in the areas of telecommunications and aircraft/rocketry.
I think a Cold War style standoff without the World Wars in the early 20th would advance technology. A cold war gets all the investment and research advancements of an actual war without the diversion of resources to actually fight.
Isn't the usual one just to have the Roman Empire survive? You just need a way for the collapse of the Roman Empire to be avoided or for it not to go hand in hand with the depopulation of Europe's urban centres.
it already has been proven that the world wars didn't add that much.
simply because some fields went forward,but others were delayed.
you also forget the consequences in deaths from the both world wars, especially since the spanish flu was a direct result from ww1, that alone is 150M+ deaths alone.
yes, war stimulats development, but now wars, less intense depressions, and the economic force would have compensated for the lack of war
simply because some fields went forward,but others were delayed.
you also forget the consequences in deaths from the both world wars, especially since the spanish flu was a direct result from ww1, that alone is 150M+ deaths alone.
yes, war stimulats development, but now wars, less intense depressions, and the economic force would have compensated for the lack of war
I feel like this fallacy gets thrown around pretty often on the board. And that makes sense. Much of our local population includes tech and engineering fans who know the history of how their favorite plane (or whatever) was made. Engineers also love their cause-and-effect, so they see war creating technology and assume that war is good for technology. Where the fallacy kicks in is when you assume that war is better for technology than peace.
The problem is that it's not really possible to back up the claim with evidence when you're talking about butterflying the world wars, since...well, we only have access to data about a timeline where the world wars DID happen.
So the fallacy persists.
usertron2020
Donor
Og invents wheel, discovers fire, develops the scientific method, and the Elder Ek doesn't order the tribe to stone Og to death.
Industrial and technological revolution begins in approx. 30,000 BC/32015 AO (After Og)
AlternateHistory.com today communicates their debates telepathically.
Between the stars
Industrial and technological revolution begins in approx. 30,000 BC/32015 AO (After Og)
AlternateHistory.com today communicates their debates telepathically.
Between the stars
I believe competition in general will stimulate technological advancement, so a Cold War between major powers would speed up tech just as a war would, as a previous poster said.
If the arms race between the Great Powers of Europe continues like it had been before World War I, but indefinitely, it could spur development.
Avoid 30 years war.
The mayhem and destruction caused by it hindered social progress, i.e. burgher economic mobility for at least 100 years.
The mayhem and destruction caused by it hindered social progress, i.e. burgher economic mobility for at least 100 years.
Deleted member 1487
Actually, the fact that Europe has been so politically divided has been suggested as an important factor why Europe, and not China, was first to industrialise. Clearly the dark ages was a step backwards, but in the long run the division of Europe might have been an important factor why it industrialised first. The explanation given is that the division lead to competition between various countries, while China was clearly supreme in its part of the world.
Deleted member 1487
That, concentration of energy resources but lack of enough to force exploration, and geography. There is a lot more factors than purely division, culture, resources, or geography individually, its all combined. Avoiding WW1 or other major wars would continue that positive competition in terms of science, along with the free flow of ideas that was set up in 1914, but badly derailed by war.
Sior
Banned
Babbage gets his Analytical Engine working and accepted by the establishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
A longer WW1 and/or WW2 would do it
Given the speed of developments etc during those 2 periods compared to the years leading up to them.
Yep that would do it!
Given the speed of developments etc during those 2 periods compared to the years leading up to them.
Yep that would do it!
Actually, without WW1 you see the first regular airline set up in Russia in 1914, which is almost guaranteed to set up an 'airline war', as no-one will want to be left out of the prestige race, thus, without war, significant amounts of money are spent on aeronautical pursuits, without an accompanying loss of life. In addition, you avoid the post-war glut of aircraft, which brought significant loss and even ruination for many early stars.
Broken window fallacy again, the destruction and loss of life means there is less money to spend on science, not more. In addition, the sudden post-war glut of equipment sends many companies in to ruination, as the government is downsizing, and the consumer is willing to go for second-best if it cones with a price-tag that's a fraction that of new stuff.
Also, this in in the Post-1900 subforum, so PoDs should really be from 1900 or after.
Last edited:
RousseauX
Donor
The Roman Empire was not an innovative entity, technological progress was faster during the Middle Ages than the Roman Empire.