The demonstration is key. The Greeks actually had one in 80BC or thereabouts, but as far as we know they never figured out a use for it. Wiki is here: Aeolipile
They wouldn’t be able to build it. It wasn’t until the 16th or 17th century that metallurgy and machining were advanced enough to build atmospheric steam engines, much less high pressure ones.
You need a lot of tech to jump start an industrial revolution.
The world would be a different place because so much happened as a knock on of that but at the same time it's hard to imagine what the world would be like. Probably very similar but also different in substantial ways.
Like obvious things like no war in Iraq or Afghanistan (at least not those wars), and less obvious things like how the attacks have reshaped liberal democracies like the US and Europe (for the worse imo), and how they empowered right wing politics in many countries (also bad imo).
The TSA is just a federal jobs program. They don’t actually provide any value; it’s been demonstrated that they miss the vast majority of contraband. The most notable function of the TSA is the temporary imposition of an authoritarian-esque environment of suspicion and control on innocent civilians, reminding us to follow the rules, or else.
Next time you want to prevent 9/11, you probably have to prevent all the reasons they had to hate us.
From ChatGPT-4:
The history of Western involvement in the Middle East before the September 11, 2001 attacks is extensive and complex, involving a range of diplomatic, economic, military, and political actions. Some key instances include:
Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916): A secret agreement between Britain and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, to divide the Ottoman Empire’s territories in the Middle East after World War I.
Balfour Declaration (1917): The British government expressed support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire.
Creation of Modern Middle Eastern States: After World War I, Western powers, particularly Britain and France, were instrumental in redrawing the borders in the Middle East, leading to the creation of many modern states.
Iranian Coup d’état (1953): The CIA, with British support, orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and strengthen the monarchical rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Suez Crisis (1956): France, the UK, and Israel invaded Egypt in response to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal.
Support for Various Regimes: Western countries, especially the United States, supported various regimes in the Middle East, some of which were authoritarian, for strategic and economic interests, particularly during the Cold War.
Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990): The U.S. and other Western countries were involved in various capacities during the Lebanese Civil War.
Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989): The U.S. and its allies supported Afghan mujahideen in their fight against the Soviet occupation.
First Gulf War (1990-1991): A U.S.-led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. This war also led to the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which was one of the grievances cited by Osama bin Laden.
Sanctions against Iraq: Following the Gulf War, the United Nations, with strong U.S. and UK backing, imposed sanctions on Iraq that had significant humanitarian impacts.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The U.S. and other Western countries have been deeply involved in this conflict, often perceived as being biased towards Israel.
Various Military Bases and Operations: The U.S. and its allies have maintained a military presence in various parts of the Middle East for strategic reasons.
This list is not exhaustive and simplifies a complex history. Each of these events has a nuanced background, and their impacts are still felt in the region’s contemporary politics.
Take the current highest-yield nuclear bomb and destroy England right before the begin of their collonial era.
Generally speaking, I believe removing a global superpower just before they do their world-changing thing is probably going to have the biggest effect on the timeline.
Everyone was building empires at the time and fighting over who got what. All that nuking England would do is to mean France, the netherlands, germany, spain etc would get more bits
France wasn’t a pushover around WW2. They had enough manpower to fight nazi Germany toe to toe. What they did, however, was underestimate how fast they could advance. France also ignored a warning that the germans were amassing to push through the Ardennes, which allowed the nazis to face little resistance on that front. Apparently, if they took immediate action, they could’ve mobilized an air raid to completely destroy that nazi battalion, which would royally fuck up the rest of Hitler’s plans
It would only be a deterrent for empire building if there’s a pattern (probably 3 or 4 similar events), otherwise people would consider it a random hateful act of god, of which there are many, and of which have been interpreted many different ways
I was focussing on changing the timeline, not on deterring nations from doing something. Without English colonializers, there would have certainly been other colonizers, but e.g. the whole China situation would have likely been very different. There would not be a dominant anglo culture right now. No English-speaking USA, no English-speaking Australia, no large countries with an anglo common law-based legal system.
If you’re fine with utterly erasing pretty much every human being conceived after that point in favor of new human beings (or other creatures entirely) may as well go big or go home and start here.
You’d have to kill every single salamander-like though, in order to find the true “first eggs on land” that spawned us all. Or maybe it was a group effort, and you really will have to kill them all.
The first time Heinrich Kramer tries to show someone the Malleus Maleficarum, I appear directly in front of him and set the book on fire. Not only is the book destroyed, but a clearly supernatural event took place to put the fear of god into him. Bam. No witch trials.
More likely outcome: he takes a person in strange clothing appearing from thin air only to set his book on fire with a magical implement as clear proof of witchcraft existing and posing a huge danger. Get ready for turbo witch hunts on crack
He wasn’t going to be any MORE nuts. Everyone knew he was a crackpot who hated women, and it was heretical for him to claim anyone but God could grant anyone powers. I make sure to do it in front of people and there’s suddenly an audience to see him be condemned by a divine agent. If they try to say it was anything else, they’re heretical too.
Or, the first time he steps foot in Innsbruck, he slips on a banana skin and slides down the street, much to the comedic delight of the locals. Helena Scheuberin even giggles and praises him for his comedic wit and skill. With high praise from an affluent local, and a natural penchant for comedy, Kramer leads a cult following in banana-skin comedic antics, and kick starts surrealist humour centuries before Monty Python.
I’d save RFK and give him a full two-term presidency. Just because I’ve always wondered how much a difference it would have made in the course of American history. It definitely seems like things took a severe turn for the worse in the late 60s and the American political system has never recovered.
I personally believe there were conspiracies to assassinate both him and JFK because they were not susceptible to being controlled by their donors or political mentors, as is the case with the vast majority of politicians. They were rogue elements with a strong potential to disrupt the status quo (i.e. gravy train) for the rest of the oligarchy, so they got taken out.
I wasn’t alive for these events and I am possibly missing context. But I just see an inflection point in the 60s and I don’t know if another term from Carter in 1980 would have been enough to turn things around. I also feel like he was a less impactful character than RFK
I’d swap some of the first clay documents around until I ended up with a timeline where we live modern life with a gift economy rather than a money economy. We’d all have a lot more options to pay off our debt rather than the streamlined ridgid money system.
I want to say leave a modern computer or some other piece of technology at some point in time (maybe 50’s) but I’m not sure if it could be reversed engineered
Even if it had infinite power and was unbreakable, it would end up being fought over and coveted as holy relic, instead of being played with and studied
Hardly. The miniaturization required to make modern chips is ages ahead of anything possible in the 50s or 60s. Hell, them even getting some x-ray microscope to see the stupidly small transistors we have today would be a challenge in itself!
Add comment