Ideas up for grabs The Most Unbelievable Science Fiction In different ages I thought of writing a science fiction novel about a country where not advanced technology but rational decisions would result in a society very different from ours. I may have been 16 or so when I first thought of this, and it was set in a non-existing country. Later I revisited this idea and I set the story to 19th century Australia. When I was bored or unable to fall asleep, I often pondered about what would have happened had the leaders of a country been smarter. For instance, by helping inventors all over the world, financing their projects in the original place on a contract or inviting them to, say, Australia. Inviting Edison, the pioneers of aviation, nuclear physicists... All this is being done now, using government funds and foundation money. What an advantage would it have been for any country to be the first in a certain area! I am sure that the only reason this never happened (until World War I) is that governments did not think it would be valuable. Australia seemed to be a good place for this mental exercise because it was far enough from other industrial centres, its population was low (so if there is a great technological development, per capita production could be real high, and the profit could be reinvested more easily than in a country with elaborate traditions), and a greater share of the state in industrial activity could be accepted (again, in a country not determined by traditional classes). And Australia was big enough so it could easily defend itself from other powers. However, it was not a unified country until the early 1900s (the Continental Congress), and it would have been difficult to coordinate the policies of the different colonies. For a long time I was also hesitating: would Britain have allowed Australia to become independent or not? What kind of relashionship would have developed between a smart Australian government and the colonizer great power, Great Britain? What would the United States, having freed itself from British rule 100 years previously, have wanted to do with such an ally? I'm convinced that state coordination would enhance the foreign market position of independent companies in any country (as this happened in Japan). I was also dreaming about a more humane and more community-oriented economic policy, which would have brought Australia closer to socialism (at least the way Scandinavian countries know it). Well, what difference would this have made? If a progressive Australia steps on the stage of world politics, what would its attitude toward the Bolshevik revolution have been? Would it have a new model of socialism, based on the market? Would an independent Australia have joined Britain in its Boer adventure? (In real history it did, but closely subordinated to the British command.) Would Australian troops have entered the world wars? Would a technologically so advanced state have made a difference in opposing the Germans? What would internal politics have been in such a progressive country? What parties would have appeared? What position women would have? The original setup (smart leadership -- but leaving other factors intact) should be tried in other areas and other historical ages as well. I thought of a tribe, living somewhere in the border region of Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia, in the mountains, which would try to keep its identity throughout centuries. This story would start approximately at the end of the Roman Empire, and certain values would have been preserved by common sense. Whoever the landlords, whatever the official religion, whatever the higher power structures, this tribe would educate the young, so that they too can pass on the tribal tradition, they would discuss public issues and make wise decisions in the best interest of the community. Could a tradition of democratic relations inside prevail in the face of pressures from outside? From priests and landlords to generals and politicians and industrialists? Would a unique community of this sort not have been eradicated as heretics? As rebels? Could the community keep its local values and still serve those actually in power? How would this community have responded, say, to Hitler's antisemitism and to the holocaust? There is a Chinese minority where matriarchy is still observed -- surviving all the emperors, local and regional wars and even the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the Maoists. In those villages it is still the women who make the decisions and they rule, men are just fathers but without the privileges of a "normal" patriarchal society. How did they do it? Or was it because the government did not care? (Like in the case of the Amish people in capitalist America; in a sense they are outside the law, but not because they were so strong to achieve this status.) Speaking of the Maoist red guardist one hardly believes this possibility. So here we are. Being smarter than your time is possible but highly discouraged. You must be a knight at the age of chivalry, no matter how ridiculous the armor, you must be christian in the age of the Grand Inquisition, no matter how well you could do without the incense, and you must be a capitalist entrepreneur in the age of the capital, no matter how much you would want to share the profit with your neighbors. Unless... unless you are lucky enough to live in the most remote location where missionaries, knights and insurance salesmen are very very rare. Someone should write this book.