4 ms·

But in practice it seemed to go the other way around. Once the industrial revolution came, slavery was out-competed by automation. The only parts of agricultur

But in practice it seemed to go the other way around. Once the industrial revolution came, slavery was out-competed by automation. The only parts of agriculture still done by hand are the parts nobody has invented a machine that can do better. Nobody is out there planting seeds by hand or watering the fields with a garden hose anymore. Whereas the modern replacement (immigrant labor) is still used, but only for the things machines can't do (yet).

xeromal 2y ago
I think the person you're replying to implied what you are saying. Technology was a substitute for slavery so it's meant to replicate it at first but unlike human machines, industrial machines can constantly improve
shiroiushi 2y ago
>But in practice it seemed to go the other way around. Once the industrial revolution came, slavery was out-competed by automation. Only after it was invented and successfully deployed. To get to that point, someone needed a reason to go to the expense and trouble of inventing that stuff. The slavery-dependent economies weren't going to do it: why would they need to?
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Rather famously, the cotton gin really jumpstarted slavery in the US south when it had been in a slow decline. I don't think that slavery is as much a barrier to automation as people think it is. We're biased by the main exposure to slavery being the US experience, where there's a noticeable difference between (free) mercantile north and (slave) agrarian south. Agriculture isn't particularly amenable to automation--not in the early 19th century at any rate--and it's not like the postbellum south suddenly found a renaissance in manufacturing.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    There is a ton of stagnant societies out there were slavery is still around. Once the "make somebody else make it go away" bizarr results appear. Dhubais medieval cannalisation comes to mind..

xeromal 2y ago

I think the person you're replying to implied what you are saying. Technology was a substitute for slavery so it's meant to replicate it at first but unlike human machines, industrial machines can constantly improve

shiroiushi 2y ago

>But in practice it seemed to go the other way around. Once the industrial revolution came, slavery was out-competed by automation. Only after it was invented and successfully deployed. To get to that point, someone needed a reason to go to the expense and trouble of inventing that stuff. The slavery-dependent economies weren't going to do it: why would they need to?

jcranmer 2y ago
Rather famously, the cotton gin really jumpstarted slavery in the US south when it had been in a slow decline. I don't think that slavery is as much a barrier to automation as people think it is. We're biased by the main exposure to slavery being the US experience, where there's a noticeable difference between (free) mercantile north and (slave) agrarian south. Agriculture isn't particularly amenable to automation--not in the early 19th century at any rate--and it's not like the postbellum south suddenly found a renaissance in manufacturing.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  There is a ton of stagnant societies out there were slavery is still around. Once the "make somebody else make it go away" bizarr results appear. Dhubais medieval cannalisation comes to mind..