> You're turning it around Well.. that semantics, which is not something I have any interest in arguing about. I’ll restate, I’m certain that we care about the

> You're turning it around Well.. that semantics, which is not something I have any interest in arguing about. I’ll restate, I’m certain that we care about the environment and sustainability much more than the Romans ever did. > systematically enslaved everyone they encountered? No, that was a hyperbole, I’m assumed that it would be pretty clear to most. Again I’m not sure what’s the point of arguing about this. The were about as much slaves (as % of population) in Roman Italy as in the antebellum Deep South, except in the Roman case the conditions for most slaves were so poor was that their population could only be sustained through constant importation of new slaves. And yes in some cases up to 90% of the population was either murdered or enslaved after some wars (eg. almost all of the people living in Carthage, in an entirely unprovoked and and unjustifiable war) and more often than not Roman conquests were followed by severe contractions of population and economic decline. > I mean mine. Our society optimizes for the GNI, at the very real risk of causing global instability, Perhaps. But I would not agree that’s true in relative/historical terms. Generally QoL for the overwhelming majority of the global population is better than it ever was in the past. Also we as a society are making many choices/decision that do not prioritize short term economic growth that would mostly be incomprehensible/irrational to the Roman elite.