Google’s AI-driven Search Generative Experience have been generating results that are downright weird and evil, ie slavery’s positives.

  • Bjornir@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Slavery is not good for the economy… Think about it, you have a good part of your population that are providing free labour, sure, but they aren’t consumers. Consumption is between 50 and 80% of GDP for developed countries, so if you have half your population as slave you loose between 20% and 35% of your GDP (they still have to eat so you don’t loose a 100% of their consumption).

    That also means less revenue in taxes, more unemployed for non slaves because they have to compete with free labour.

    Slaves don’t order on Amazon, go on vacation, go to the movies, go to restaurant etc etc That’s really bad for the economy.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      That really bad for a modern consumer economy yes. But those werent a thing before the industrial revolution. Before that the large majority of people were subsitance/tennant farmer or serfs who consumed basically nothing other than food and fuel in winter. Thats what a slave based economy was an alternantive to. Its also why slvery died out in the 19th century, it no longer fit the times.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Obviously, but my point was that slaves weren’t economically terrible in an agrarian peasant/serf economy, which everywhere was before the industrial revolution.

        • Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          There being more slaves now then ever is heavily disputed. There is also the fact that was little more than a billion people in the world when the trans-Atlantic slave trade stopped, so there would have to be 8 times as many for slavery to be as prevalent.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Yes, I agree, our per capita slave figure has to be much lower these days, mathematically speaking.

            Even one slave is a slave too many, and knowing there are still so many (whatever figure we put it at) is heartbreaking.

            Things like the cocoa plantation slaves and the slave fishing ships have people kidnapped and forced to work for nothing. Actual slavery by any definition.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Of course, when I said it died out I didn’t mean slavery was entirely gone and doesn’t exist at all. I mean it died out as a prevalent societal structure.

              100s of people in slavery on a cocoa plantation is of course awful, but it shouldn’t obscure the fact that there used to be vast swathes of land where slaves outnumbered free people and their children were born into bondage - that is what has died out.

              • livus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                I understand your wider point and I agree with it.

                But I think the point I was making actually supposts what you were saying upthread.

                The agrarian model of the cocoa industry is economically reliant on slavery. 2.1 million children labour on those plantations in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, and a significant number have been trafficked or forced.