4 ms·
But that makes these claims of "slavery" even more absurd. Would you have to do more or less living as a subsistence farmer? Would you have better or worse qual
by spwa4 2y ago
But that makes these claims of "slavery" even more absurd. Would you have to do more or less living as a subsistence farmer? Would you have better or worse quality of life?
That's an easy one: no way in hell, it'd be SO much worse. Our society can only exist with extreme specialization.
Hell, if we take into account that the land available couldn't even remotely support the people living on it (~2km2 per person per year), so there'd be a famine under those conditions and you'll what's being suggested as "alternative" is effectively extreme suffering followed by death for 95%+ of the population, maybe 99%+.
- leereeves 2y agoSubsistence farming is orthogonal to slavery. A farmer could be free, and a slave could do specialized work. Even in the antebellum South, there were slaves doing advanced work, like James Derham who worked as a doctor. Most people on this site are beneficiaries of this economy, fortunate to have many options and resources. Not everyone is so lucky. I'd like to think it would be possible to build a specialized, prosperous economy without economic exploitation, but we certainly aren't there yet.