Humans are not made to be "happy" or live in "best" worlds. Wherever we go, we create our own misery. People only realize the value of morals when they live in immoral worlds, and without tragedy there is no greatness in art. So I reject the premise of the original question, there is no "best world". No matter what you do to better peoples' lives, in the end they will find ways to throw everything down again.
If there are worse outcomes than what we live in today then there are also better. If it's possible for the Cold War to have heated up and July 2012 exists in a post-apocalyptic society then it's possible for somewhere down the line, humans could have done something differently that resulted in the quality of life being significantly higher than on their July 2012 than ours.
You misunderstand the question entirely. Either that, or you're so caught up that humans are destructive creatures that you think it's impossible for us to have achieved anything better than what we have.
Honestly, as Leviathan said, the whole question is absurd. It relies on humans not acting like humans. No matter what changes you make you are dealing with trillions and trillions of individual, unpredictable variables over the centuries, and individual humans will always seize an opportunity to alter things for their benefit and the general detriment. The only rational means of stopping this is a mass extinction event. In other words, we are already living in the best possible history.
Scientists say that there were only 100 billion people throughout the course of history. That's significantly fewer variables.
In regards to what you're saying, I completely disagree with you. One influential person or event could change the course of history. Say a Byzantine Emperor was a better negotiator and threw off the Turkish conquest of Constantinople by a hundred years. That's a hundred years that the Balkans and Hungary don't get besieged by the Ottomans which would ultimately result in Austria not annexing Hungary and throwing the whole history of Eastern Europe out the window. Alternatively, say one of the 10+ assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler were successful. The entire history of World War II could be thrown off; it could have occurred later, not at all, and if it did, without Hitler mucking up with Barbarossa.
What I'm asking is this: What event could set off something that causes an early Industrial Revolution, an early establishment of the nation-state, the survival of a once great empire through reforms that creates a more peaceful and progressive world, etc?
NapoleonComple said:
Charlemagne actually succeeding in uniting most of Western Europe in such a way that it didn't shatter might have saved a lot of bloodshed if it meant Europe not falling into the inter-rivalries of later eras. Might have prevented the colonial era too. Without dozens of tiny infighting nations Europe might not have become so belligerent as Spain, France, Britain and others became in later eras.
Of course, that would have required non-partible inheritence.
I threw around this idea too; through Charles and his successors, the Western Roman Empire is revived as a sort of "Gallic Roman Empire."
How feasible it is to wash away non-partible inheritance and whether or not the states Charlemagne conquered were happily subjugated or ready to rebel is unknown to me. I'm not too familiar with the history of the Frankish Empire.
DoomBunny said:
Probably the maintenance of the French and British Empires unto the point where the natives were totally civilised. Admittedly, with some large changes to the French model and minor changes to the British one.
This is the most plausible one in modern history, I think. It would require the British and French Empires to confederate so that greater autonomy is given to the colonies but they ultimately answer to London and Paris for purposes of economics and military - essentially a more effective Commonwealth of Nations.
A divergence here would most likely occur after World War I. Anytime before, and the imperialist mindset is too strong.