I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when numbers are pushed off to the side, it feels very deceptive to me. There is definitely some funkiness go

I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when numbers are pushed off to the side, it feels very deceptive to me. There is definitely some funkiness going on with the numbers here, but I'd point out a few things. 1) In an interview like this, you wouldn't really expect to get the full set of numbers. 2) There is a theory that you need to grossly overstate a problem for anyone to do anything about it. In general, I think this is true, most people don't respond to "half a percent of the world's population is in slavery" even though this is an absurdly high percent (assuming you agree with his definition). Overall I agree with you that having more numbers would be informative, I just don't think that the lack of numbers in this article is representative of anything. My argument is that you can't compare the price of a slave in the 1800's to the price of a slave now and use the severe difference in price as proof that the people of the 1800's put a higher-value on human life. Sure, but the point is that moderately rich people can now go somewhere and acquire slaves and have no need to even treat them so well as to give them a place to live and some minimum amount of food since if you lose one, another one isn't too expensive.