What if technologies were infinitely generalizable?

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/934vqq/mars_doesnt_have_enough_co2_for_terraforming/ Yesterday, I was discussing at some length the issue of "terraforming Mars" on reddit science. I managed to accumulate a truly enormous number of negative points -- 100 or more I think -- for noting that the entire concept is probably a total waste of time. After all we've never terraformed a planet, we don't know how to terraform a planet, and we can't even avoid largely destroying our own planet, so, what's the point? Now, the counter-argument is that "in concept" we really do know how to terraform Mars, because, after all, we do affect our own planet, so, "theoretically", it's the same thing. It was also suggested that the fact that NASA is planning a mission to retrieve a small boulder from an asteroid, hence, "in concept", the same principle applies to bombarding Mars with sufficient asteroids to change the atmosphere to an earthlike state. Now, the problem here, is that technologies aren't infinitely generalizable. The fact that I can drive my car to work doesn't necessarily mean that I can drive my car to Alpha Centauri, or even to Mars. Doesn't matter how much will power I have, I still can't do it. And, trying to do it, will simply be a total waste of time. Effectively, simply saying that something has been proven "in concept", usually means you're either a liar, or a fool. If you can't do it, now, you don't really know if you can do it at all. And, generally, effective new technologies require whole new levels of complexity, and ideas. I think the big problem with even contemplating the idea of "terraforming Mars" is that it really has nothing to do with Mars. It's just another way of obsessing over what we're doing to our own planet, and avoiding developing new ideas and concepts. It's fascist, retrograde thinking, and lacks all creativity. Because, if technologies were infinitely generalizable, Adolf Hitler would have won the Second World War. The essence of fascism, is that conventional approaches always work, and that new ideas are unnecessary and undesirable.

What if Henry II is beaten to death on July 12, 1174, by the Monks at Canterbury Cathedral?

In 1170, Henry II inspired some of his armed knights to murder Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, in a power struggle between Church and State, which culminated in Henry II saying "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Priest?" So, they did. This action resulted in a Christendom-wide scandal of epic proportions, threatening Henry's throne, and resulting in him, ultimately, having to go on his knees to Canterbury Cathedral on July 12, 1174, and permit each of the eighty monks there to administer three blows to the Royal Person. Now, in keeping with the fairly loose traditional relationship between the Christian and temporal powers, this "scourging" was more symbolic than real. If all eighty monks had applied their full physical force to three blows each, with heavy whips or weapons of any type, the King would certainly have been killed. So, let's suppose the monks do just that! They beat Henry to death, and love every second of it! What happens? Do armed men intervene to protect the King from the Monks? Do they succeed in beating Henry II to death, and does the Archbishop of Canterbury announce that now, he alone rules England, second only to the Pope himself? Does this result in a great civil war in England, to determine who really rules, Church, or State? How does the Pope in Rome react to the death of Henry II at the hands of the Monks? What effect does this have on the Crusades to the Holy Land? What is the impact on the future of Christianity in England, Europe, and the World? What is the impact on the relationship between Church and State, in Christendom, which has always been rather vague, and difficult to determine, precisely?

My knight

My knight in armor, Your pride pierces my heart, Whilst you swear your love eternal, Will shelter us forever. For you I am unarmed, And you love me for it.

What if Werner von Braun had never lived?

While the basic concepts underlying conventional rocket technology were developed by Robert Godard in the 1920's, it was Werner von Braun who perfected them, and demonstrated their wide application under the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, in particular with the V2 rocket. Arguably, the conventional rocket paradigm has changed remarkably little since the V2 was developed in the early 1940's. This rocket, quite specifically, inspired the ballistic missile programs in the Soviet Union and the U.S., and, also the space programs of all nations of the world. Von Braun was a remarkably charismatic man, a brilliant engineer who also had the charm and aggressiveness to attract the attention of powerful and influential people to his designs and his ideas. He pushed for the idea of lunar exploration using conventional rocketry in the 1950's, in the United States, eventually getting his way with the Apollo program, the culmination of his extraordinary career. Interestingly, even Von Braun never seriously suggested conventional rocketry as a means of human colonization of the planets. He knew the limitations of this paradigm, and, he was a realist, and, an honest man. Of course, many people in the 1960's questioned the desirability of even going to the moon using conventional rockets, because of the expense. There was little possibility of such activity being commercially viable. So, let's suppose Werner von Braun had never lived. How does this change things?

What if Major General Daniel Sickles hadn't been at the Battle of Gettysburg?

I was thinking of titling this post "What if Dan Sickles had followed orders at the Battle of Gettysburg", but, given Sickle's personality and background, he could not possibly have followed his orders. There was no possibility of Sickles allowing himself to be the weak link in the line, to be overrun, and to allow the Union lines to be enfiladed and overrun by the Confederates. Was not going to happen, Dan simply wasn't built that way. That's what General Lee had been doing to the Union Army repeatedly for the previous year or so, and Dan wasn't falling for that one, ever. On the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Sickles was ordered by commanding General Meade to position his Army corps in a defensive position on low ground in the Union line. Sickles complained that the position was too vulnerable, and requested permission to advance about a mile forward, to higher ground. Meade curtly refused. Sickles ignored this refusal, advancing to the high ground in Meade's absence from the scene. When General Meade returned some hours later, he observed "General Sickles, you are somewhat in advance of the army." However given that the Confederate troops were already engaging battle, Meade accepted the inevitable, and agreed to supply Sickles' "salient" on high ground. Effectively, Sickles both thoroughly confused and disrupted the Confederate battle plan, and delayed the onset of battle. By positioning himself on high, defensible terrain, he was able to inflict even more casualties on the Confederates than they were able to inflict on the Union troops. Hence, by the third day of battle, the Confederates simply hadn't sufficient forces to win the battle. Frankly, I suspect if General Sickles hadn't been very seriously injured, he probably would have led the Union troops on to rout the remainder of Lee's forces, and the War would have ended two years earlier than OTL, whatever General Meade's orders had been to the contrary. Sickles bitterly complained to Lincoln of Meade's "excessive timidity". On the other hand, absent General Sickles, the Union lines are enfiladed by Confederates, as General Lee had been doing repeatedly in previous battles against Union forces. The Union is routed, and the Confederates have an open path to Philadelphia. Britain may recognize the Confederacy, and the Union may have to sue for peace.

What if Dan Sickles is on the Democratic Ticket in 1860?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sickles This was, actually, a quite real possibility, until Sickles gunned down his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key II, the Washington D.C. district attorney, and son of Francis Scott Key, the author of the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner, the American national anthem, right in front of the White House. Somehow, that didn't quite have a "presidential ring" to it, although Sickles was acquitted, on the grounds of "crime of passion". Sickles was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1856, from New York, and was very popular and well known in his home state. He was considered a rising star in the Democratic Party, at the time, and was very well liked by, and well known to, President James Buchanan. Subsequent to his unfortunate assassination of the district attorney, he got himself made a general by raising his own brigade, and served as major general at the Battle of Gettysburg, where he lost a leg in battle. He is, actually, credited by many historians with actually having, personally, "won" the Battle of Gettysburg by quite systematically disregarding General Hooker's orders regarding the placement of his troops, and, he is accused of having almost lost the battle by many other historians, for exactly the same reason. So, suppose Sickles manages to defuse his wife's romantic entanglements without murdering the district attorney. As a popular New Yorker, he makes a credible and effective Presidential or Vice-Presidential pick, in 1860. The Democrats take New York in the 1860 election, and the Presidency, specifically because Sickles is on the ticket. Certainly, there will be no immediate Civil War, under these circumstances. What happens, exactly, next?