How would history been different if ...

• The South had won the US Civil War?
• Churchill had died in boyhood?
• Karl Marx, who had a ferry accident in younger years, had drowned there?
• The ancient Greeks had succumbed to the Persian invaders?
• The English Channel had been calm when the Spanish Armada sailed?

I read recently that such an alternate history is called a Uchronia. Hundreds of them have been written.

I had no idea there was a name for this other than "Alternate History." Very interesting! Hubby loves reading the Harry Turtledove books . . .

Surely this idea has been explored and discussed, but I have not yet found it on the internet.

What if the European invaders of North America had all been vegetarians? How would their meatless diet have affected the history of the U.S.A. and Canada? ... the Slaughter of the Buffalo? ... the Cattle Drives? Barbed-wire Fences? Railroads? Cowboys?

Oh, that is one of my new favorite words! I love to imagine how things would be, so this is really fun for me.

I have always wondered what would have happened had Fleming's cultures not been contaminated by mold. I know that penicillin would have been developed anyway, but perhaps not so soon.

The same goes really for the scientific finding that most ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori. I remember an article in the "Scientific American" that said reserachers found this bacteria in many patients with peptic ulcers. So, one of the researchers drank the bacteria, and then he developed an ulcer. I haven't been able to find that article again to confirm it, but that's my recollection. Again, we might be still treating peptic ulcers with milk, bland food, and instructions to decrease your stress level had that guy not drunk the bacteria. Incidentally, many ulcers can be eradicated fairly quickly now with antibiotic treatment.

Coincidentally I've just finished watching the DVD of the first two seasons of Sliders - ashow with exactly this theme.

Oh, Bob...share some of the scenarios with us! I find it so interesting to think about these.

What if Hitler had been killed in WWI?

This site looks to be quite fun.

Uchronia: The Alternate History List is an annotated bibliography of over 2500 novels, stories, essays and other printed material involving the "what ifs" of history.

Well it's actually a teen sci-fi show but among the scenarios are

Texas never joined the Union and expanded west into California forming the Nation of Texas.

America lost the war of independence and remains a British colony.

Prohibition was never repealed and modern day America is ruled by various gangster factions.

A world where the communism has swept the whole world.

A world (and this will ring a bell Kalleh) where antibiotics were never discovered and relatively minor illness have devastating results.

A world where the hippies' Summer of Love is stll going on (and Oliver North is president).

A world where San Francisco is one big penitentiary.


There's also a world where Australia has been annexed by a South East Asian coalition and is divided into Northern and Southern Australia and America is involved in the war there which is following very similar lines to the Korean War. Sadly this premise isn't explored at all, just used as the background to a fairly routine adventure story.

The various scenarios aren't explored they are just really used as the back drop to a sci-fi series that many saw as being a rip off of Quantum Leap. Personally I think it's superior to Quantum Leap because it lacks that show's earnest moralising and goes for a lighter and, to me, more entertaining feel.

Third season episodes get a little crazier with pregnant men, giant scarabs, dream control, a "Stepford Wives" lookalike, and so on and the rationales get wilder and wilder. By then it's lost its way and season four rewrites the whole basic premise to such an extent that it effectively becomes a different series.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
Persoanlly I think it's superior to Quantum Leap because it lacks that show's earnest moralising and goes for a lighter and, to me, more entertaining feel.

---

Don't diss Quantum Leap, you!

I liked Sliders when it was on BBC2, but I think Quantum Leap is much better - at least there was more resolution in each episode, and 'earnest moralising' based on factual occurences (civil rights, domestic violence to name but two) in a sci-fi show can be very helpful in bringing such important issues to the minds of people who might otherwise not put much thought into them. Of course, such a show can go overboard if it's not careful, but I feel QL had enough silly, light-hearted or just plain spooky episodes to prevent it from becoming anywhere near too preachy. I found the scripts very intelligent most of the time - and I do like a feel-good factor in my viewing!

On the penicillin uchronia note, it scares me to think how it may have been rejected as deadly poison if it had been tested on guinea pigs, whom it kills. (I doubt any of you don't know that, since it's quoted by every anti-vivisection group I've ever been in contact with, but it's relevant to how precarious things really are - who knows what else has been thrown out which could have been useful to mankind?). (More info.)

I enjoyed Quantum Leap a lot, too! Now Uchronia sounds good, too!

I liked that link, Cat. Thanks for putting it in. I had no idea about all those things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
Persoanlly I think it's superior to Quantum Leap because it lacks that show's earnest moralising and goes for a lighter and, to me, more entertaining feel.

---

Don't diss Quantum Leap, you!

---

I'd hardly call it dissing to express a preference and give a reason. (Yes, I know you weren't really criticising, I saw the )
I liked QL too, I even bought some of the novels based on it which were on the whole better than the series itself. I just preferred Sliders as I did find QL to be too preachy.
Just a personal opinion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

it scares me to think how it may have been rejected as deadly poison if it had been tested on guinea pigs, whom it kills.

I wonder what happens if the guinea pig gets an infection.

I have always been amazed at how animals often have many of the same treatments and medications as people. We had a sick ferret once, and I remembered thinking that the treatment for his symptoms would have been exactly the same in humans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I have always been amazed at how animals often have many of the same treatments and medications as people.

---

Just don't go giving an injured cat aspirin, unless you want to potentially put it out of its misery for good.

The thing is, whereas some treatments will be similar, the differences are still too many*:

"It is said that human genes are 85% similar to equivalent genes in mice and about 98% similar to equivalent genes in apes (eg chimpanzees). These are impressive statistics. However the human genome contains 3,000 million nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA) arranged into a staggering 30-35,000 genes. In addition a single gene can produce different proteins and so have different functions depending on when and where in the body it is activated. The subtle differences in genes between species, multiplied by this huge number of genes, results in the substantial morphological and physiological differences between humans and mice or humans and apes.

Two percent of 3,000 million nucleotides (the number in the human genome) is 60 million nucleotides. In humans, changes in a single nucleotide can be responsible for effects as devastating as sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis. When set in this context, the difference in genes between humans and chimps (2%) or humans and mice (15%) seems somewhat more significant."

If non-human animals were genetically identical and vivisection was effective most of the time, then although I'd still have a moral problem with it, I could at least see its benefits. The fact that its effects are potentially dangerous (think Thalidomide - no birth defects seen in the feline 'models') actually makes it easier to argue against: logically it just doesn't make sense to use methods that continually give misleading results.

And Kalleh, that's a good point about guinea pigs with infections - I've never thought of that! I've never had a guinea pig so I wouldn't know - but are there any antibiotics that aren't penicillin-based? I'm guessing there are, because my dad's allergic to the stuff (maybe he's half guinea pig!), but I think he can still take certain antibiotics.

*(Apologies for quoting rather than just providing a link, but the top right of the page contains distressing images that might put people off checking it out.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
Just a personal opinion.

---

How many times have I told you Bob that you're not allowed a personal opinion in my (even virtual) presence?


Getting back to the thread - why "Uchronia"? *goes back to check entire thread to see if etymology is explained - nope, can't see it.*


Did anyone see the episode of Red Dwarf that featured alternate realities? I'm thinking of the one that introduces Ace Rimmer, but come to think of it, they may have touched on the subject a number of times.

The dimension theory of reality is a genuine theory isn't it, so all these uchronia may actually exist somewhere. Wish I could hop between them and settle in a better one!

Quote, "...Wish I could hop between them and settle in a better one!..."

That seems to me to be a comment from one who needs treatment by the internal application of some Real Ale!

Cat, just hop on the Virgin service to Redhill (you can do via Reading if you don't want to cross London) and I will personally buy you some Harvey's at The Garland tonight! They do a mean dark mild - as good as anything brewed in the Midlands.

LOL, Richard!

Sadly, much as you may try to entice me, I doubt I'll ever develop a taste for beer. I have a real aversion to bitter tasting things (can't even eat a forkful of salad with one tiny bitter leaf in it - it taints the rest), and most beer does have a bitter aftertaste - even mild!

Still, you never know. I trained myself to like olives - although it took me a decade to do so, and I still can't eat the green ones.

I hate olives, too, even the black ones. However, Cat, not all the beer is bitter. Really, you should try Fuller's 1845. It has a nutty, sweetish, rich taste to it...also with a touch of orange; it's a real complex flavor. Bob actually had complained once that it was too sweet.

Most beer is bitter because of the hops. If your palate is especially sensitive to bitterness then it will take some time to develop a taste for hopped beer - and some people never do acquire such a taste.

There is a maturity aspect as well; when we were children we preferred sweet things to salty or bitter things and the preference for sweetness is one that some people never lose.

To acquire a taste for good beer (and believe me, it is a taste well worth acquiring) try starting with beers that use no hops. There aren't many available since most people now expect the hoppiness. However, try the Belgian fruit lambics and also Froach from Scotland, flavoured with heather. Before the introduction of hops around 300 years ago all beers (or ales, to be precise) were flavoured with herbs such as heather. As you progress you will find that you appreciate the flavours that beers can have and your palate will begin to seek greater stimulation.

And then, just as wine-drinker usually start with an inoffensive white, such as Leibfraumilch, before progressing to more challenging whites and eventually reds, so will your beer palate develop until you learn, as all beer enthusaists have learnt, just how wonderful a drink beer can be.

If your palate is especially sensitive to bitterness then it will take some time to develop a taste for hopped beer

That's funny because I have always thought hoppy beers taste fruity and have a fruity aroma. The hoppier the better, as far as I am concerned. I remember once I told a beer connoisseur from the realbeer.com site that a particular beer tasted "fruity" to me. He was shocked and said that wasn't possible; they must have given me something else by mistake. It was only later, when again I had a real hoppy beer and it tasted "fruity," that I realized the probem had been my description of the taste. Had I said it tasted "bitter," he would have been fine with it.

I don't know why hops taste fruity to me; they just do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
There is a maturity aspect as well; when we were children we preferred sweet things to salty or bitter things and the preference for sweetness is one that some people never lose.

---

Are you calling me immature, Richard? *stamps feet and blows raspberry*
I do have a very sweet tooth though, although not as sweet as when I was a child - and I've never been keen on sickly pralines! I also have a thing for sour tastes though - I get disappointed if I'm offered a sour sweet and it doesn't turn my mouth inside out. Tangy too (apple or rhubarb pie with as little sugar as possible - mmm!). But never bitter. Ugh. Ear wax.

I find that when I drink really hopsy beers I get congested. Must be an allergy. I enjoyed Fuller's and I like the locally brewed special beers . . . but just have to watch the hops thing.

blows raspberry

Is that another Britishism...or have I just not heard it before?

Surely you've heard of a raspberry, or Bronx cheer?

Tinman

Kalleh said, "...I don't know why hops taste fruity to me; they just do...."

Hops come in many different kinds of flavours, although all will be bitter. Many US beers use the Cascade hop and that is characterised by strong citrus notes. Indeed, Goose Island IPA is very heavily hopped and I read once in "What's Brewing" a review that said is was, "More fruity than Wrigley's". This was a reference to its Chicago origins, which it shares, of course, with the chewing gum firm.

Cat. I have sorted out the beer for you. Belgian Lambics. Very sour and not very bitter. Arguably the oldest beer style available. You tried a fruit Lambic at the GBBF and enjoyed it. Next time you're in London I'll take you to a Belgian bar to try some.

"Raspberry" is Cockney rhyming slang (Raspberry Tart) and is very commionly used over here (although many users are probably unaware of its origins).

The Mavens' Word of the Day: raspberry.

Tinman

Surely you've heard of a raspberry, or Bronx cheer?

Nope, I hadn't heard of "raspberry" in that way, and I have never heard of Bronx cheer. I am a word neophyte, I suppose. Tinman, that is an interesting explanation of 'raspberry.'

Cat. I have sorted out the beer for you. Belgian Lambics. Very sour and not very bitter.

Cat, you must try it! Richard is great at suggesting beers.

Reviving a thread...

quote:

The same goes really for the scientific finding that most ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori. I remember an article in the "Scientific American" that said reserachers found this bacteria in many patients with peptic ulcers. So, one of the researchers drank the bacteria, and then he developed an ulcer. I haven't been able to find that article again to confirm it, but that's my recollection.

Well, my recollection was correct! Drs. Marshall and Warren just won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of helicobacter pylori, the bacterium that causes peptic ulcer disease. The media have reported that Dr. Marshall purposely infected himself with the bacterium to prove that it indeed causes gastric ulcers.