Why should a very advanced society use slaves? They could use robots.

>>52682001
Slaves are cheaper and more loyal than robots

>>52682001
To enslave the good guys for the purposes of the story.

For sex.

Maybe a situation where maintaining slaves is easier than maintaining robots. Maybe the slaves are building the infrastructure for the robots?

Because the robots are sapient/ intelligent enough that forcing them to work without consent/ cause is also immoral

Slaves are a different species / race that the advanced society doesn't consider to have moral standing. They might as well be robots made of meat.

Robots need repair/maintenance AND fuel. Living organisms you just give them food and they repair themselves, plus their chemical energy is generally more efficient than what robots need. Robots would need more in the way of supply lines and infrastructure, organics are better suited for areas closer to wilderness.

Also you don't need to pay the manufacturer.

>>52682001
Because they aren't advanced enough to have cracked the incredibly difficult challenge of Strong AI and so for a lot of general stuff slaves are still worth the effort.

The rich people who would buy slaves want flesh and blood slaves for two reasons.

The first is prestige. It's the same reason why somebody owning a living exotic animal is a lot more impressive then not owning one, or owning a fake or robotic version.

Secondly, and somewhat more importantly, flesh and blood slaves cannot be hacked. You wouldn't want to be some rich slaver asshole and have death robots that some guy could control have way around the world to get at you, would it?

>>52682016

This, and the fact slaves would come pre-built and they can teach each other how to work to avoid lashings and get food.

>>52682054
Why would you need strong ai. Wouldn't it be better to have a worker that can't think for itself.

>>52682001
>Why should a very advanced society use slaves?
The slaves are another engineered species that die without a master. The previous master race was destroyed by yours because they treated their slaves badly.

>>52682109
If your house is on fire, would you rather have a robot that doesn't understand what "a dangerous fire" is and won't act to put out a kitchen fire that's got out of control, or would you prefer a slave who can detect smoke and realise the kitchen's on fire and call the fire brigade?

The robot can't call the fire brigade because it can't differentiate between the fire of the oven and the fire on the walls.

>>52682123
This is pretty good.

I'd have just went with the advanced race being kinda dicks about being advanced. Keeping the less advanced race as powerless slaves stops them from educating themselves and rising up.

>>52682071
>they come prebuilt.
It takes 9 months to build a slave and even then they are mostly useless for the next 12 years.
Meanwhile it takes a car about 18 hours to build so I assume it would take a similar amount of time to build a robot.

>>52682001
It was the robots' idea. It was for this service to society that they were finally awarded full rights.

>>52682147
That's a dumb argument, of course a robot can do that without being a strong AI. We (almost) have self-driving cars now, and they can differentiate between moving objects which are not dangerous, and moving objects which pose a danger to the driver.

>>52682043
>just give them food and they repair themselves
If a slave loses an arm, they are not getting their arm back. If a robot loses its arm then you can just give it a new arm.

>>52682001
>Biological vs Mechanical
On average, there exists no mechanical machine as efficient as a biological one, so there's that. However machines are easily tailored to perform a task, they can be strong, live long, do not tire, do not give up etc. Any industrial task (which is what slaves are usually for) is better suited for machines because the task is usually repetetive and consists of simple parts.

>>52682001
Take the Ssaelit folks in Unsounded. This is a setting where undead 'plod' labor is cheap and effective for basic drudge-work, but the Ssaelit believe that corpses have to be cremated before rot sets in to avoid damnation, and further believe undead labor is blasphemy. So they still use regular slaves.

>>52682233
If a slave loses an arm you kill it and buy another 10 cents slave.

>>52682001
Slavery is cool.

>>52682016
>>52682071
I'd also like to add that slaves can easily be used to establish a sustainable or semi-sustainable community of themselves through breeding. There is no need for additional resources to do so (until after the birth, anyway). Robots, on the other hand, can be programmed to make more robots but each one takes more materials to build and if those materials are already expensive, that only compounds the issue.

>>52682001
>I will base my society upon intelligent robots
>what do you mean, a virus made them turn hostile?

>I will base my society upon unintelligent robots
>what do you mean, that rival faction used EMP?

>>52682294
>slaves
>cheap
Pick one

>>52682354
They are very cheap. Heck, even in real life you can get one for like fifty dollars. Just find a subhuman malnourished being.

In a slave society however, they would be massive breed so the price would be even cheaper. More slaves = more merchandise.

>>52682317
How do you think EMPs work?

>>52682001
>Why should a very advanced society use slaves? They could use robots.
The SW setting had this mentality.

Then the Great Droid Rebellion happened.

>>52682001
Are the robots sapient?

>>52682001
potatoes are cheaper then batteries

>>52682001
Fun fact, "robot" is from the czech "robota" meaning slavery

>>52682469
>potatoes are cheaper then batteries
But anon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNB3rDkedaM

>>52682001
Because they can and enjoy it in a sadistic way

>>52682001
Robots aren't lewd.

>>52682001
They use robots for industrial tasks and manual labour, as well as tasks which are too hazardous for organics.
They use slaves for tasks involving a more nuanced approach, such as cooking, singing, dancing, sex or blood sports.

Actually, it'd be interesting to have a sort of snobby rivalry between those who use robots and those who use flesh and blood slaves.
"Oh, my lord Balthasar, you still have flesh concubines? How quaint. Aren't you worried about them biting you?"

File: IMG_0470.png (32KB, 802x618px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 802x618px

>>52682568

File: Omnic_crisis_battle.jpg (41KB, 800x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x350px

>>52682001
Because it's easier to deal with a slave rebellion than it is to deal with a omnic crisis

>>52682001
> Muh traditions (like India got to space)
> You can't get spiritual energy from robots suffering (dank eldar)
> Sentient robots have civil rights, so you use both meat slaves and robot slaves
> No sufficiently realistic sexbot in year 3000, WTF?

Robots are incapable of feeling pain, so you have to build a better robot to make them work harder instead of just hitting them more.

>>52682001
Your race people die if it doesn't have psychically linked puppets-slaves by the time they hit puberty. Of course, you won't enslave your own people anymore, but captives from undeveloped planets and criminals are fine to.

>>52682764
This only happened because they did the colossally stupid thing of letting really smart robots make lots of stupid robots. I believe there's also the implication that Talon or whatever big evil organization that Talon is a part of engineered the whole crisis so people wouldn't trust robots.

>>52682016
>more loyal than robots

I kinda doubt that. Slaves for the most part resent their masters.

>>52683026
True, but you could argue that if you don't automate the process of building robots, you'd need to get people to build them. And no one wants to work!
Also I think that god programs weren't full-scale sentient AI at first, and it took years for them to evolve. I definitely agree that Talon/that Eye organization are involved in this.

>>52682001
Slaves are cheaper.

Consider self replicating robots.
They would need several other materials to replicate themselves but would do it faster.

Slaves can self replicate if you have a handful of them and they wouldn't need more than their current supply of food, although they would need a lot of time to get the child ready for work.

Because societies aren't organized around maximizing efficient use of material and distributing labour evenly.

They have a religious duty to enslave the weak.

>>52682001
Pleasure slaves, and working in areas that are for one reason or another inimical to mechanical systems.

>>52682001
Our society is heavily automated now, but there are still fields where we need a great deal of human labour to perform given tasks. Slaves would just fill the roles that, these days, are unskilled or dangerous.

>>52682147
Why not have dumb robots doing repetitive/hard labour and then slaves supervising things?

>>52682313
You need materials and fuel/energy to make and maintain robots
You need food/shelter to accomodate slaves.

The problem of ressource is the same, with the difference that you can quickly increase your capacity to fabricate new robots... while the growth rate of your slave population is limited by biology.

>>52682161
How long does it take to build the factory that makes the car, the steel mills that make the metal for the cars, the iron mines that feed the steel mills, and the electricity and gasoline to run all of that?

Slaves, however, make more slaves. Just add food and a place to fuck.

>>52684001
Or just cram some into brainbox and call it smartbot.

Medical testing.

>>52684001
It would cost more to educate slaves in robotics and administration. It's more economical to make a whipbot that can service hundreds of slaves and managebot that can electrocute hundreds of whipbots.

>>52682016
>more loyal than robots
Just how bad at programming are these people, anyway?

Robots can be hacked, but slaves can be bribed or threatened, and are also capable of hating you or placing their interests above yours. Robots have repair costs, but slaves have medical costs. There aren't very many jobs where a slave would have a higher productivity than a robot, so the economic case would have to boil down to "slaves are very, very cheap." I think you have to invoke something well outside of economic considerations in order to come up with a reason for a technologically advanced society to practice slavery; I can't come up with anything better than the hypothesized intelligent species which needs masters to survive.

File: 1476431732744.png (688KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 800x450px

>>52683162
Psychology is a sonnuvabitch, and abusing people is far easier than programming machines. Depending on scale, the odds of a slave going Django to devastating effect are probably favorable to a full blown skynet scenario.

As a status symbol perhaps?

>>52682317
>I will base my society upon intelligent slaves
>what do you mean, an uprising made them turn hostile?
>I will base my society upon unintelligent slaves
>what do you mean, that rival faction used gas?

>>52682001
>Trandoshans
>Advanced
Pick one

>>52682161
>It takes 9 months to build a slave and even then they are mostly useless for the next 12 years
Not when you conquer a planet with 7 billion of them lying around, maybe 4 billion in good working order if you want to get technical.

>>52682001
I don't know how to build or program a robot but i could kidnap and psychologically break a person: very quickly.I doubt building a robot would get me hard either.

>>52686825
>doesn't get hard building robots
get out

>>52682001
They wouldn't. If robots exist to do manual labor, than slaves are functionally obsolete

>>52686566
Subpro (Co-creator of the Headhunter with Incom) is actually a Trandoshan company.

>>52687126
Huh. Well how about that. I thought trandoshans were basically only good for no brained muscle work.

>>52682058
>flesh and blood slaves cannot be hacked
No, they can just be convinced, blackmailed, enraged, bribed, or otherwise subverted in countless ways. Think before you post.

>>52682354
They were pretty cheap back in the day. The Spanish didn't even bother improving working conditions or do more than basic care for their slaves in the Americas because it was cheaper to just bring more in.

>>52682058
>What is a Jedi mind trick?

Genetically engineered slave species. Engineered to be incredibly loyal, intelligent enough for whatever role its meant to fill, strong, hardy, or whatever trait you could want.
It's not like the only slaves ever can be humans.

>>52682001
Because Trandoshans in particular were assholes and had a culture of slaving and hunting intelligent beings. They did it for ritual and cultural reasons, not practical reasons.

>>52687266
>Just make more arkanian offshoots! That didn't go poorly at all!

File: not even worth text.jpg (29KB, 620x363px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 620x363px

>>52682016
>more loyal than robots
>cheaper

A robot will do literally anything you tell it to so long as you can tell it in the right way.

A slave will do what you tell it to only if you threaten it with physical violence. An injured slave cannot work, either, so your threats must be carried out rather creatively if you want them to stick. Slaves also resent and inevitably work to impede the work of their master. They require constant surveillance, upkeep, and maintenance.

Robots only cost as much as power and maintenance do, which in a futuristic society should both conceivably be nil. If you can power a starship you can easily power a slightly more complicated toaster.

Slaves require food, tools, clothing, shelter, and medical care, which are all drastically more expensive in the long term than anything you'd need for SlavBot.

There is no practical benefit to choosing a human slave over a mechanical one.

>>52687289
>contrived scifi conflict plots will always happen in real life
>service robots and species will always rebel! always!

>>52687315
>Expecting star wars tropes to continue to apply in star wars.
Yes, and?

>>52682001
Depends on the form of slavery to be honest, the modern idea of slavery is one of the most cruel and barbaric forms historically.

>>52687445
What do you mean with modern idea of slavery?

>>52687573
Shh, he's a critical race theorist.

Slavery was actually an amazing social experiment practiced by the hyper-advanced Africans, and was in no way exploitative of anyone in any way until white people started doing it.

Just let him have this one.

>>52687573
Chattel slavery, I think. Not really that modern.

I can think of only two reasons. One is that the living beings you enslave are already there, you'd to build the robots. Two is that the robots might not be designed for the task you have in mind and you lack the ability to build the right kind of robot.

If the local infrastructure does not support automation, manual labor is required instead.

Depending on where you are, it might very well be cheaper and easier to house and feed a dozen slaves than power, repair and program a single robot or droid.

>>52687573
Presumably chattel slavery as practiced in the Americas as part of the Atlantic Triangle, with the possible addition of the Spanish efforts on Hispaniola and in their colonial possessions on the southern continent.

That shit would offend the Romans of the Principiate, for instance.

>>52682001
Robots are forbidden by Butlerian Jihad. Thou shall not make machine in semblance of man.

>>52683284
You don't need be people to build robots. Only supervise how one type of robots builds other types of robots and make occasional repairs on a conveyor line.

>>52684031
Yes, and then you need to train them. Build factories that will produce tools for them. Allow them access to high tech tools.

And pray that they won't try to build some guns instead of what you want them to build.

>>52687732
>That shit would offend the Romans of the Principiate, for instance.

Yeah, much better to make them fight to death for your amusement.

>>52687732
The spaniards were among the most brutal slaveholder in history.

It's the Law.

If you go with the slave rules the Jews had to follow, they're way more palatable and you can use the words 'indentured servitude' with a straight face. They had rights, privileges, and terms on their servitude, so they could still come out of it. Going all brutal on them would cost you in the eyes of the public, the law, and God.

This shit where people think we don't have slaves now because we have robots is hilarious.

>>52682001
An advanced society that is faced with the choice to either use slaves or robots DOESN'T use slaves. That's it. Slaves cannot possibly be better than robots.
A culture that doesn't get the choices, maybe because robots are heretics, maybe because you want to keep your defeated foes as slaves, will perhaps use them. But one major question that should be asked then, is, how would a civilizations that doesn't have robots stay competitive against civilizations that do?

Anyway I've noted that so far everyone who argued for "slaves are best" pointed out a completely made-up flaw to robots and ignored the much more obvious and costly flaws that come with fleshy slaves.

>>52688028
*Most* gladiators were actually free men, AND very few of them actually died, from what I recall in classical studies.

More like dangerous pro wrestling than dog fights.

All right, everyone, before you continue operating on the assumption that all slavery functioned the way that it did in the Americas, please look up slavery in ancient Rome as well as the Ottoman Janissaries.

>>52682001
>Searching...
>Answer formulated.
>The cluster census of 3071 shows that when a world reaches aproximately five million sophonts, it includes the necessary industrial and technological infrastructure to achieve core-world levels of automatization within 23 standard years.
>However, this is an average compiled from the data of 281.432 clades spread around 1292 star systems. Individual cases may present substantial deviation.
>Despite achieving industrial sovereignancy, the Gracchi Colony still employs great numbers of slave labor. Estimations range from 1.25576 to 3.04250 slaves for every citizen. The cause is mainly a developmental sinergy outside planned parameters: the romani memeplex starter pack and an unregistered hider enclave, leading to almost total enslavement of the illegals and sociopolitical reorganization into a "Neo Res Publica".

>>52682213
>of course a robot can do that without being a strong AI
You need a dedicated robot to do that; it's called a fire alarm. And that's just for one emergency. You going to get a robot just in case there's a flood, too?

File: Aurora-of-Emrakul-Eldritch-Moon-MtG-Art.jpg (58KB, 570x798px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 570x798px

You can't psionically control a robot, but you can use a slave to hit the controls for you.

Use both, of course.

File: FOXCON-APPLE-SUICIDE-NETS.jpg (98KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 660x440px

>>52682001
Based on the level of wages and tax on wages living workers can well be cheaper than robots.

Source: chinese manufacturing, however let's just say the standard of living for a chinese worker is very low. As in so bad they need anti-suicide nets in some areas (like apple factories). They also force their employs to sign an anti-suicide pledge. Break it and they can fire & sue you.

Does that sound like something close to slavery? It sure does to me.

>>52682001
Ideology, cultural inertia, differences in technological capability.

It's sure looking like we'll be able to make a Genejack long before we can make a reasonably strong GAI whose behavior we can keep safe/pro-human in this timeline as it is.

A few possible reasons
1) Men of Iron / Skynet happened in the past. Any machine more complicated than modern automobile assembly line is heresy.

2) Comstar / Word of Blake style monopoly. Works best in a post Golden Age setting. One faction has a solid monopoly on robots and keeps prices high. The uber rich can afford bots but lesser nobles must make do with living slaves.

3) Why not both? Robots are used for hard labor but fleshy servants are used wherever a smile and customer service are desired. That darn uncanny valley is hard to get past.

4) Pacifist Masters: Young upstart human race just takes to the stars and starts nuking the shit out of other races. Your settings Vorlons/Culture/Ancients need to stop them but refuse to commit genocide. So a few generations of slavery should act as a good time out while they mature as a species.

>>52687249
>Spanish
>Slave
Every fucking time.
Go suck a negro dick you heretic anglo.

>>52689820
>They also force their employs to sign an anti-suicide pledge.
>Break it and they can fire & sue you.
Fat lotta luck that's gonna do to a corpse.

File: 2bbd439aacdf29548856b6223cd8c7c7.gif (896KB, 700x600px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 700x600px

Slavery breeds comformity and thus decadence.

No intelligent civilization should use slaves.

>>52682016
>Slaves are cheaper and more loyal than robots

Literally none of that would be true in a very advanced society unless it was specifically handicapped for >plot purposes.

>>52682001
>Why should a very advanced society use slaves? They could use robots.

>Penal Punishement/Humility
Their society could just have "humiliation" as their only form of capital punishment: you do a bad thing, so now you get to experience the humiliation of having to do menial labor or otherwise serve the middle or even lower class. You fucking pig, etc.

>Genetically engineered slaves
Our hypothetical society could have either developed purely from bio-tech, I.E; everything they use is alive in the first place, so really their robots are just a species of servants they genetically engineered and developed in the first place.. So to us it would be slavery.

>Racism
They could just be Racist, you know?
Technology doesn't necessarily equate or correlate with advanced culture, kindness, or humility, etc.. So, yeah; they could be enslaving an entire race or species purely on the basis that they just fucking hate them, think they're inferior, or a number of other reasons both imagined and possibly real.

>>52682001
How advanced are we talking about? Because I can see multiple situations in which a civilization might find it more convenient to breed or capture slaves than create and maintain robots. Living beings are built for survival, which can make it easier to do certain tasks in dangerous situations than it would take to keep having to replace expensive fine machinery in those same situations, or to find a way to ruggedize the robots for this work. Slaves can be "maintained" using just shittier versions of the resources a society of humanoids already makes: Simple food, low quality clothing, etc. On top of that, a slave could be seen as a status symbol in a way that having a machine loyal to you isn't. The machine was just built to be that way, the slave had to be bent to the master's will.

>>52690383
If you fail at suicide can they sure can. If you do not fail they can sue your estate and family.

>>52690710
Rome had steam engines.

But the economy was already set up for slaves. So the rich in control had a vested interest in continuing to use slaves.

So the steam engines got used for novelties and toys.

>>52691021
Not so much a vested interest, just that it wasn't economically sound to invest in the development of steam to the point that you'd get any real returns from it.

>>52691021
Rome may have had steam engines but they didn't have the metallurgical know-how to actually do much useful with them.

>>52691021
Rome had a curiosity. Their steam engine was nowhere near workable enough for a sudden shift to the labor force. Like >>52692570 said, there's more to it than just having a device that can turn steam into mechanical power. Their economy and social policies played a PART, but it wasn't the sole reason.

Other devices among Hero's inventions actually were quite a bit more widespread due to their more cost-effective measures. Piston water pumps and syringes for example, or more amusingly, vending machines.

>>52683162
>Slaves for the most part resent their masters.
Only if their masters abuse them and if they know they have a chance at something better.

You would be VERY surprised at how loyal slaves can be to their masters in even Brasil and Barbados, two of the worst slave societies to ever exist.

>>52685697
In Africa, they were just as much a status symbol as they were a source of labor.

Part of what made the European (and later N/S American) model of slavery so much more cruel was that Africans derived value simply from having a slave, rather than strictly from the labor provided by the slave in the European model. Even a poor, weak, infirm slave had value in African society, because he was a living testament to his masters wealth and ability to flaunt his wealth in providing for others. That same slave is virtually worthless in European society, because he can no longer work, and will either be worked to death, outright killed, or possibly freed (though generally not likely) - he's no longer returning any revenue for his masters, and they're going to cut him loose. Because slaves were simply a means to an ends for Europeans, they pretty much treated them as such, and were often far more cruel in the process of it.

Neither one was really "better" than the other, at the end of the day. They just took slaves for very different reasons.

>>52682043
> their chemical energy is generally more efficient than what robots need.
Are you pretending to be retarded? Biological life is horribly inefficient.

>>52682505
Labour, not slavery

File: frakking cymeks.jpg (286KB, 2528x2378px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 2528x2378px

By this point I wonder if we as a culture haven't already programmed ourselves to design robots to turn on us.

>>52682001
Because they're evil and they love it!

>>52690587
>conformity leads to decadence
The obsession with the individual leads to decadence: conforming to the traditions of your society was more often a sign of order and humility. Slaves were traditional in many ancient societies which flourished for hundreds of years, and there are many different forms of slavery, some of which were more horrible than others, and the oldest forms were fairly tame.

>>52693165
Just wanted to point out the prediction came true.
>>52687595

>>52682001
Because they're not logical.

>>52682001
It depends on the setting, but generally slaves have an advantage in that they breed, they are capable of abstract thought/interpreting orders, and they're probably plentiful after an invasion or conquest.

We have modern parallels to this discussion even in this last century. Why did the Germans and the Soviets use slave labor when they had factories? What could some Jewish textile merchant do under the whip that a German worker wouldn't do twice as well for pay? The answer is that you HAVE several million Jewish textile merchants and a severe shortage of German workers, so the question of efficiency is moot, either you use them to dig ditches or they sit around in camps doing nothing, and there are a lot of ditches to be dug.

If you have millions of subjugated people sitting around, why not use them? They might not be as good as robots or factory workers or tractors, but either you use them or they sit around eating all of your food until you can dig a ditch big enough to hold all of their corpses. Why not at least have them do construction work or mining on the side? Economy is all about maximizing the output of individuals. If you can have several million individuals work extremely hard without intaking even as much as a homeless person, why wouldn't you do it? No matter what, it's a net gain in labor vs consumption.

Of course back in the day before the industrial revolution really kicked off slavery was actually profitable in and of itself, because the difference between a skilled mechanized laborer and a slave was far smaller, but I don't think the difference will ever be 1:1, so slavery will always be a viable option, if not a good long term strategy.

>>52696835
> don't think the difference will ever be 1:1, so slavery will always be a viable option, if not a good long term strategy.
Robots are already surpassing humans in many specific types of tasks, and there's no reason to believe they won't eventually surpass humans in all fields. Extrapolate that to an actually highly advanced society and the difference would likely be staggering. At that point there would likely be very little rational reason for slaves beyond for personal or cultural tastes.

>>52687296
If only we could establish a system of rewards to keep the slaves happy, perhaps pieces of paper that grant them aspects of freedom like choosing your food or dwelling, but can only be used once

And if you make certain things expensive so that they must be paid off with paper slips over time, the slaves have to work if they want to keep their junk

>>52697594
God damn that's brilliant, why has no one thought of this before?

>>52682058
>The first is prestige

THIS is the primary reason. Mrs, Snootington is going to brag about having real slaves and how only the nouveau riche use robots.

>Secondly, and somewhat more importantly, flesh and blood slaves cannot be hacked.

THIS is profoundly STUPID. It's amazing that you could come up with the prestige angle and then suggest something so completely retarded.

>>52687296
You dont injure or abuse your Horse. Why would you have to constantly threaten a Slave?

Think about Roman slavery.

>>52697696
Or indeed most slavery throughout time, antebellum south style slavery is the black sheep of the family.

>>52697696
>You dont injure or abuse your Horse.

True, but you certainly don't spend a lot on it either - especially towards the end of it's life.

>Think about Roman slavery.

Yes, why don't YOU think about Roman slavery? Better yet, why don't you educate yourself on the facts of Roman slavery?

You can start with Cato the Elder's "De Agri Cultura" and it's much admired advice about cutting the rations of sick slaves, selling salves when they get too old or sick, and various methods to keep slaves constantly at their tasks.

If you think Roman slavery wasn't as bad as antebellum slavery in the US South, you've got a LOT to learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo

>>52693568
>horribly inefficient
>a human being can run dozens kilometers with just the calories contained in a burger

>>52697883
>forgetting that to refine that amount of energy took huge amounts of energy accumulation and at each stage only a small percentage of the energy actually transferred over
A robot can basically harvest and transfer the vast majority of all the energy it gets into work and an advanced robot is gonna be at the very least as efficient as humans, probably many more times so. We're talking theoretical shit here nigga, none of this pussy ass "as good as nature could do with a billion years of trial and error".

>>52697854
I don't believe it.
Lots of animals turned out to be domesticatable much later in history.
You can domesticate foxes. It's not hard.

>>52686011
>I will base my society upon happy intelligent citizens, going with my goals of their own choosing because they align with the common good
>what do you mean, that rival faction used gas?

>>52698115
This! It just clearly wasn't worth the effort at the time.

>>52697594
>dude we're slaves lmao

File: hqdefault.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

>>52698115
>Talks about how animals need to be herbivorous and friendly to domesticate

Right, that's why man domesticated these fuckers.

>>52698178
>Implying the majority of the world isn't essentially so

>>52698192
Shit meant to reply to the video, sorry bout that mate.

>>52698226
You aren't a slave because you're poor.

>>52698288
So because I have the arbitrary label of being free I can't be a slave. I sure do feel much better now about being forced to work for someone else's benefit just so I can not starve to death or die of exposure while never having had a say in the matter. That sure doesn't sound any thing like slavery. Thanks for setting me straight.

>>52698337
Work for yourself then you salty bitch. You have the freedom to do so because you aren't a slave.

>>52682001
It always seemed to me that certain races/planets/corporations built their industry around slavery. For example, Zygerrian. So if your economy and labour force are already entirely slaves, then it's very expensive to swap them out for an entire legion of robots.

Not to mention that most people only kept the one slave unless they held stature, like in the exchange, or were in charge of a business, like Watto.

>>52682016
Many slaves also had chips and implants that'd explode if they escaped.

File: 17911134_1385245734921287_778835789_n.jpg (19KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 720x960px

>>52682001

I have an Empire in which zombies AND robots are used. The former are more valuable because even something as simple as a golem needs to be built, while all you need to create an army of zombie slaves is to slit your own followers' throats.

>>52698192

No, we didn't domesticate wolves. They domesticated themselves, just like cats. Humans provide a good source of plentiful food. Becoming tamer enhanced their survival near humans.

>>52698364
So I'm free because while I still don't have a say in this bullshit situation or the socio-economic system within which I am trapped, I can gamble it all and hope to get rich and escape my slavery? Yeah that's so wonderful, I am really a truly free man who is blessed! Nah not really, fuck off you first world cunt.

>>52682001
As for Twi'Leks they were considered attractive by most races, so they were just slaves for that reason alone. Plus their race was naturally submissive, so it was easy. The planet was the breeding grounds, then the prettiest of the bunch was taken and sold to people off world.

File: 14c.jpg (27KB, 600x733px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x733px

>>52698382

>>52698406
I knew it, you're salty about not being wealthy.

>>52698432
You mean not being a slave, there's no meaningful difference between the wealthy freemen slave holders of yesteryear and the rich of today. Though of course it's not just that, I could still be free as a "poor" man if this slave mentality hadn't been plastered over my native culture, if I could have been born into a world that wasn't obsessed with the cutthroat free market bullshit you idiots use to justify your inhumane and monstrous slaving culture.

>>52698406
You're not raised by your parents so they can ask you at the age of adulthood, or an age where you can be considered capable of caring for yourself so that we can ask if you'd like to be a part of the socio-economic system that has been established for millennia.

What would you do then, if you chose no? Go off and claim your own bit of land to live off by yourself? You wouldn't. I doubt you have the skills, knowledge, and toolset to provide all that for yourself. Not to mention, how would you then carry on a lineage?

No, you need a community to provide what you yourself are not able to and in turn, you provide a service that they are not able to. This is how money works, to mediate the amount of work you have done to contribute to society.
It's not slavery, it's how society works to benefit everyone. That shouldn't change because one prick is upset he isn't able to get all the capital funds for all the luxuries they desire.

>>52698337
>Working for someone elses benefit
Then work for your own benefit then

>>52698406
>Gamble it all so I can get rich.
Work isn't slavery anon. All but the very lucky have to put effort in to get shelter and sustenance. No one would label our hunter gatherer ancestors slaves.
You are literally just being salty that some fuckers get lucky and don't have to put in work. Doesn't make you a slave.

>>52698461
Pretty sure you aren't kept in a workcamp at gunpoint as literal property my man.

>>52682001
>implying robots aren't enslaved
FUCKING BIOLOGICAL-CENTRIST STOP TRIGGERING ME

>>52698465
>Go off and claim your own bit of land to live off by yourself?
That's not even an option though, doing so would be illegal. We are given no choice in the matter at all, it's comply or die (or rather be forced by illegitimate use of state power to be forced into labor in a prison for breaking the "law").

>You wouldn't.
Don't speak for me asshole.

>It's not slavery, it's how society works to benefit everyone.
Being enslaved to some high and lofty ideal like society is still slavery, most slavery throughout history has been justified the very same way.

>That shouldn't change because one prick is upset he isn't able to get all the capital funds for all the luxuries they desire.
I suppose slavery shouldn't have been banned just because some uppity negros wanted more than the civilization, salvation, and accommodation their kind white masters had provided them with.

>>52698486
>Insinuating that isn't what the state does
Monopoly on "legitimate" violence &c.

>>52698497
Robot comes from the czech term for forced labor too.

>>52698540
>Can't claim a bit of land
Go find yourself an un-inhabited island then. Not societies fault your ideal of "claim land and own it" falls down once all the land gets claimed and owned.

>>52698540
You're free to work wherever you like as long as someone will take you. The big bad government isn't doing shit to you.

>>52698540
How is providing a service in return for a service slavery? It's trade and barter, it ensures everyone gets something. Yes, capitalism promotes greed leaving some with more than others but nobody is forcing you to work for them. That's part of the freedom we have in first world countries. There's the homeless and quite a few people who have withdrawn from society to live in the wild.

If you were really so against the supposed slavery of the current world, you'd save up for your own plot of land and do as you please on it with your own farm and shit to be entirely self-reliant. It's definitely possible, and many people have done it.

>Don't speak for me asshole.
You know I'm not wrong, that's why you're here on an image board whinging instead of doing something about it. There's plenty of things you can do.

>>52698475
A hunter gatherer had actual freedom to choose their life, we today are not so lucky as we are variously constrained by legal constructs designed to limit our freedoms. If a person has no real choice in the matter he is a slave!

>>52698559
There's a reason un-inhabited islands are uninhabited, and they are also mostly already claimed by sweeping sea based territorial stakes.

>Not societies fault your ideal of "claim land and own it" falls down once all the land gets claimed and owned.
You were the one who chose that ideal, not me. Let me suggest another ideal which one can live by... Oh wait I can't because all state powers currently operate on this ideal and will enforce it with deadly force, and yet you people continue to insist that we are free to chose our own way. Laughable concept.

>>52698560
Vile and hateful lies you fucking statist.

>>52682001
Actual reason: Wookiees are talented engineers

>>52698600
No they just died if they didn't pull their weight. Specialisation and the freedom to choose a path in life started post agriculture.

>>52698600
Genuinely intrigued anon.
Ignoring the >hunter gatherers chose their lives
What *would* you free society look like?

>>52698583
Because there is no differentiation between that and slavery, slaves are provided food and shelter for their service, and many times they or their families is compensated for their slavery. You only measure some arbitrary distance between the two despite both being limits on freedom. My distinction is clearer, total freedom or it's a form of slavery no arbitrary cutoff point between shades of grey.

>there's homeless and people living in the wild
Most of whom are considered criminals and have threats against their lives leveled against them many times.

>If you were really so against the supposed slavery of the current world, you'd save up for your own plot of land and do as you please on it with your own farm and shit to be entirely self-reliant.
That's like saying to a black slave "If you really opposed slavery you'd just save up money from odd jobs and buy your freedom". It still defends the core principle of slavery and treats it as the norm.

>There's plenty of things you can do.
Name some that don't involve capitulating to slavery or inviting threats of "legitimate" violence from sovereign powers.

>>52698673
>reds

>>52698657
What a joke, hunter gathers had more free time than most modern day men. Any man would have just as much free time to pursue their own interests as modern man, the only difference is today instead of pursuing interests for their own sake we now do so only as a means of labor. Making humans some skills robot for the good of others and not ourselves.

>>52682001
Robots cost money up front. Slaves are cheap unless you have an import ban.
Also sex.

>>52697883
A 75 kilogram human can go about eight kilometers on the energy of a liter of oil.

A Vespa scooter with a 75 kilogram rider can go about 32 kilometers on the same energy.

>>52698670
There is no single type of society that can be considered free, since to be free one must have the choice to choose other types of living so ideally my free society would be only one of many choices.

However if you wish to know my personal preference, it would be a Christian anarcho syndicalist (or other form of anarcho direct democratic) commune.

>>52698749
Ayy, so you were an indoctrinated rad-leftist after all.

>>52698711
Migratory hunters and gatherers typically require 13 hours of work per day to gather enough food for subsistence.

A modern American can afford basic subsistence with 2.5 hours of work a day.

>>52698764
And you are an indoctrinated free market capitalist pig aspiring to be more than the slave he is, but I was kind enough to not bring that up.

>>52682001
The same reason Jabba put a woman in a bikini when he's asexual. It's not about attraction or sex appeal, it's about domination and ownership.

>>52698786
The difference here is that I was spot on and you are just flinging labels at me because you're mad.

>>52698773
Where are you getting those numbers, everything I find suggests 3-5 hour working days in abundant and unspoiled natural environments. Keep in mind that unlike modern man these people do not need to also work to pay rent or any of the other myriad of costs that one must pay in order to be able to keep going to work every day.

>>52683162

Yes. That's why in every society the slaves that escaped managed to leave and returned to their ex-masters because they didn't know shit.

The only exception to this is Haiti.

The rule of slaves is that they were more than likely the stupidest and most fatalistic tribes in a region and were on the border of being wiped out anyway. They were sold because there was profit in it.

Even Jamaicans came back to the British after slavery ended and spent a century presenting their ass to their masters because they realised living in the wilds was fucking shit compared to living in a society where slavery was possible.

Same happened in the US civil war as well. The nogs that escaped would more often than not return to employment under someone who was a slave owner. The Confederacy had entire companies of ex-slaves who were willing to maintain the status quo because they knew that if slavery ended then they'd die from starvation. The farms and plantations even witnessed slaves agree to employment for communal food and lodgings after slavery was utterly abolished because the slaves weren't interested in making their own way forward.

TLDR

Slave races are generally the inferior group of a nation thats sold by the superior group of a nation so they can co-opt their land and make money from selling them. The slaves are generally too stupid to escape or make it on their own otherwise.

See the entirety of Western Africa where the dominant tribes were capturing and selling other tribes to the Portuguese and Dutch.

>>52682317
>>52686011
>>52698136

Concluding: Slavery is bad and for losers, biological or robotic. Mass murder is the way of champions.

>>52698807
So you are claiming you don't believe in the free market, or capitalism, and don't aspire to be rich because of these systems.

Can't say I find that too believable.

>>52698839
You can't get away with rephrasing yourself so that your accusation is broader anon.

>>52698856
The only thing that was left out was the insults, and those have no bearing on the broadness of the allegations

>>52698839
Not the anon, but one of the others you've been arguing with.
Honestly? No. I believe in regulated markets, and I'm comfortable with a reasonable wage in exchange for a job that brings me satisfaction.

If I had enough money to stop working, I'd just be doing a less-pressure version of what I'm already doing.

Capitalism can provide for all who want it to providing it invests, regulates and taxes properly.

>>52698839
Oh, and by the way. If you genuinely want a free life, move over to britbongistan, get citizenship and live of benefits.
Totally doable, not worth it to almost all.

>>52698870
Even with your tighter allegation, you're still wrong. Silly little anarchist.

>>52698897
>Thinks bongs give out the dole like candy to anyone who isn't a refugee
Ha, not if the Tories have anything to say about that.

>>52698902
What do you believe in then whoreson?

>>52698939
Aww come on, that insult wasn't straight out of USSR propaganda or anything.

>>52698926
They've only managed to fuck the disabled benefit so far.
If you're willing to pretend to look for jobs every day, Universal Credit is basically the old system with a new lick of paint.

>>52698969
Nice deflection mate but quit being so thick. You going to lay your cards on the table, or you just going to dance around trading words like some sort of faggot.

>>52699003>
>52698897
It doesn't work for everyone though. You've got some people who don't get enough to cover all their costs of living and some who get thousands every month. The system's very complicated and you'd probably need a few children (with disabilities) to get anything decent out of it, unless you've spent years planning how to maximise what you get.

>>52682001
filthy savages who believe that they are "advanced" violently enslave actually advanced people that they constantly call filthy savages to try to prove that they are "advanced"

>>52698926
Get really tan, learn arabic and pretend you are a refugee then

>>52682001
Depends on how hard it is to make a robot, and how well you intend to keep your slaves.

>>52699079
Oh, god, don't get me wrong. The benefit system is a mess to all concerned. Geography, family size and the person who assesses you play more a factor than need and circumstance.
However, you *can* live your life of it, which was kinda my point to the "work is slavery" anon.

>>52699134
I don't tan, I burn. I'm like a fucking vampire. Do you think just saying takbir and ass-a-lama lake-cum a lot would convince them anyways?

>>52699120
If they were so advanced how come they got enslaved by savages in the first place?

Checkmate "advanced people".

>>52699193
>If people are so advanced, how did they lose a war to emu's.

Checkmate "homo sapiens"

>>52699206
Those emu fought dirty!

For those assuming that slaves are necessarily cheap:

In the American South, back when they had legalized chattel slavery, the average slave right after the South seceded could cost $130,000 USD in today's money, and about half that before the secession:

https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

And slaves could continue to be pricey if they were skilled somehow, like Roman gladiators. As a previous anon mentioned, Roman gladiators were more like the professional wrestlers of today than starving, unskilled losers being tossed into an arena to die. Like pro wrestlers, gladiators had to be trained not just how to use their weapons but how to use their weapons in a way that looks cool and painful but doesn't actually leave any lasting wounds. Between that and all the physical activity they do, gladiators were surprisingly expensive to feed and train.

So maybe in a given setting a biological slave could be more expensive than a robotic one...but not necessarily, especially if various industrial techniques reduce the cost of producing sufficiently intelligent robots.

But really, >>52682154 has the ultimate right of it.

>>52682001
The robots have a better union.

>>52682001
Indeed.

>>52682001
And who would maintain the robots then?

>>52682001
Prestige! Owning an unfailingly loyal piece of equipment is not as impressive as conquering the will of one of your own kind.

In any non-wacky-transhumanist society, slaves are superior to robots.

Slaves automatically reproduce, self-repair, self-learn (and teach other slaves), and are easy to indoctrinate with intuitive cultural propaganda and basic psychology Modern robots wear out in a decade, two tops. Slaves provide several decades of hard labor plus several more of lighter manual or intellectual labor.

Ultimately, slaves are Von Neumann'd autonomous nanotechnology with dozens, perhaps hundreds of specialized circuits for complex problems in complex environments built into their learning processor, which has evolved for maximum fitness over millions of years.

Crude mechanical machinery out of the 1950s and fragile, stupid silicon chips just can't compete.

>>52698337
The difference between slavery and a worker is how you're not your employer's property. You can choose if you want to study to become something more, or you want to live your life off some small easy business and chill out, or want to try battling your way up in some big company or something else. Choices like that is what we call freedom.

>>52698337
There are many other choices besides working your ass off at some big company and subjugating yourself to some big boss.
Just open your eyes and look around.

Stop eating the propaganda that you need to buy expensive stuff to be happy and you need to have a lot of money to be successful.

Me? I live in a quiet town in a 3rd world country and my "work" is
renting a few houses I have in touristic locations, which I do via a phone app and never have to see the clients personally or visit the houses.
I get enough money to live my life, have my hobbies and buy new houses every few years to get extra income.

The best part is that unlike a job at some company, I can leave the houses to my children when I pass away and they will have that same stability and the same freedom to live their lives however they want.

>>52682001
A slave has a cheaper startup cost, can be basically self sustaining, can breed, and some people just like being in charge of people (and/or get off to it)

>>52696676

Not even close, because the original poster >>52693165 flat-out says that African slavery was almost as bad as European slavery. It just states the reasons they took slaves and how that affected the systems that spawned from them.

>>52697678
>Mrs, Snootington is going to brag about having real slaves and how only the nouveau riche use robots.
More specifically, Mrs snootington is going to brag about how these slaves have served the family for generations

>>52705781
I hope she has the pedigree papers to back that claim up.

>>52702319
>Me? I live in a quiet town in a 3rd world country and my "work" is
>renting a few houses I have in touristic locations, which I do via a phone app and never have to see the clients personally or visit the houses.
>I get enough money to live my life, have my hobbies and buy new houses every few years to get extra income.


Damn nigga you hood rich as fuck

>>52698825
...while I don't really agree on EVERYTHING you say, it is true that many slaves ran away only to realize "oh shit, life sucks out here" and go back to their masters, where at least they could count on getting fed and having a place to sleep.

Apocryphally, Joe, the slave-secretary of Sam Houston during the Texas Revolution, ran away to flee with some other slaves to Mexico, where (public) slavery was not allowed. However, they came back after only a few months, and Joe told Houston that "He would rather be a slave in Texas than a free man in Mexico" because Mexico was such a shitty place to be a free black man (Mexican racism ain't got nothing on US racism, which is hilarious when people try to point to Mexico for things like civil rights).

Furthermore, the reason Mexico hated the Anglos bringing in black slaves wasn't because they were slaves - it was because they were black, full stop. There were also virtually no legal black settlers in Coahuila y Tejas, because the Mexican government explicitly prohibited black and Indian settlers from moving to Texas under the Empressario system.

>>52682001
In the case of Star wars, it's because a collective of assholes, who tap into the embodiment of all that is evil in the universe, have been working overtly and covertly for the better part of recorded history to influence the mores of the Galaxy

>>52705886
You better believe that the snootington family has bonded lineages for their slaves that date back to the original contacts for passage on the colony ship

>>52705975
It probably doesn't hurt that historical records point to a much gentler version of slavery being practiced in Texas as opposed to say, Alabama or Georgia

File: nanako.jpg (95KB, 581x965px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 581x965px

Well, if you want to make it mathematical.

A robot's ability to do tasks cost efficiently can be understood as the rate at which it performs such a task modified by it's proficiency at the task, all of which is minus the upfront cost to build/buy the robot, the cost to program it to perform it's task, and the cost of fueling and maintaining it. This can be represented as:

>(R x P)T - (C + TM) = Output

By contrast a slave's ability to perform tasks efficiently can be understood as a similar equation, but one with strong distinctions. Namely, a lower upfront cost, cheaper maintenance, a self replenishing pool of labor, and a variable learning curve of skill representing some slaves as having an innate talent to the task that they have been set to work at, with some having a low level of potential while some have a very high level of skill. Incidentally this makes retraining much cheaper.

So we have a window where if T (time) is greater than some number that we'll call @, then the lower cost of maintenance of the slaves presents a benefit, and similarly a point where for robots (R x P)T - (C+TM) < (R x P)T - (C+TM) for slaves. This indicates that there is an ideal window where it makes more sense to utilize automated workers than slaves, and depending upon the relative efficiency of robots to slaves at a given task over time then this window may be wider or narrower.

Further, this is complicated by the fact that retraining slaves is simpler than retraining robots. The robots will need new software and quite probably new hardware and lose out on productivity during the update, whereas the cost of retraining slaves is merely units of time. Therefore if you require a fluid labor force then the comparison is:

>(H + S) + (R1 x P1)T - (R2 x P2)T

If this is less than zero then it is cheaper to utilize slave labor.

>>52705721
>African slavery was almost as bad as European slavery

You are literally grading shit and saying this shit is better than that shit because it comes from a brown person's asshole.

Stop it.

>>52683026
>da bad guys are behind everything ever

im sick of this in stories.

>>52706176
True, though I would credit that to the following:

A. Most of the settlers of Texas were immigrants or Appalachians, who were never all that fond of slavery (though not really against it, either) for a wide variety of reasons.

B. Most Texans were too poor to treat a slave badly, because they cost a shitload of money to keep and maintain. Major plantation industries like those that flourished along the Atlantic and Mississippi were not nearly as prevalent because cotton didn't grow as well in SE Texas and because most people could get land for stupidly cheap, but getting the labor to work it was a major problem.

>>52706446

If we start looking deeper and are willing to venture into people in the setting and irl's magical realm then it becomes even clearer why a slave would often be preferable even in a sci-fi setting with robots or high fantasy setting with similar constructs.

The key is the sex market. A house slave in most times had a secondary, implicit function of being sexually available to his/her/it's master's use. Even slaves who were not sent to a brothel could be utilized for sexual purposes by their owners and their owners guests, and in the event that their primary line of economic utility dried up or dipped significantly in value compared to the value of their time in the sexual market then the slave could easily be pivoted to work out of a brothel or crib to bring their owner money much more easily than, say, a robot or golem laborer. A robot or golem made for that explicit purpose would be unlikely to have much utility outside of it's chosen market, and vice versa.

Therefore if the civilization in question has a thriving sex market, licit or illicit (most of them do), then a slave is often preferable to a robotic worker given their ability to pivot into this market so long as it does not hit the point of saturation.

>>52682001
Because robots with enough intelligence to do all the things humans do would be slaves.

>>52706568

...why does discussing the intricacies of a process and tradition that is prevalent across almost all human societies and arguably is what enabled the merge of Old and New World to ever happen in the first place (in the process saving Europe from itself economically) trigger you so goddamn badly? Are you incapable of thinking any harder than, "SLAVERY BAD!" (which is is, don't get me wrong) to actually understand why things turned out differently for different human societies?

>>52694225
not him but do you think that excuses the ethic decadence?

I mean if you see other groups as subhuman, fine I'll concede we aren't totally operating from the same perspective but otherwise its a hard ideal to wrap your head around

File: Slylandro.gif (94KB, 485x213px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 485x213px

>>52706446
Why the assumptions about upfront costs, maintanance and self-replicability.

OP didn't specify the type of robot, it's entirely possible we are talking about bargain bin Von Neuman machine made out of nanomachines son, or something similar.

>>52706176
>>52706596

To tack on to this as well, the Comanche and Apache pretty much killed black people outright (as well as Mexicans) and the Karankawa literally ate them. Where, exactly, was the slave supposed to run to? Furthermore, every slave you had on your property was another hand to hold a rifle in case of marauding bandits, Mexicans, or Indians - they'd kill a white man as easily as a black man, and both white and black man knew this.

>>52682001
Because there are forms of enslavement that make you yearn for it and become incapable of ever leaving it from your own volition or through liberation

>>52706688

Because that either fails to eliminate those variables since there is always a cost, if only an opportunity cost, or I'd have to wonder why the army of advanced self-replicating nanomachines that can do anything is part of an adventuring setting.

>>52706643
Well, okay, I'll byte...

What are the benefits?
I mean, aside from how it benefits the owner, how does it benefit society?

>>52697696
>roman slavery
>gentle

Well treated house slaves were the minority, we just hear about them because many of them actually could write and thus account for themselves, or ingratiate themselves to their masters (the same which happened in the antebellum South if I may mention.)

Roma went through slaves like candy if it was for the REAL WORK like mining, pump work, or crude construction purposes. Mining slaves were always fucked throughout history as it was basically a long death sentence.

Hell the Romans even had a special executioner for slaves, the Carnifex (as torture was unclean and unfitting for the death of even the lowest roman citizen.)

File: index3.jpg (17KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 183x275px

>>52706698
The white man lies...

File: index.jpg (8KB, 221x228px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 221x228px

>>52706742
Go on...

>>52706730
>I'd have to wonder why the army of advanced self-replicating nanomachines that can do anything is part of an adventuring setting.
I dunno, seems like the kind of thing a super advanced race would like to invent?

>>52706782

In that setting there wouldn't be very many adventures to be had.

>>52706742
>Roma went through slaves like candy if it was for the REAL WORK like mining, pump work, or crude construction purposes. Mining slaves were always fucked throughout history as it was basically a long death sentence.


Just curious, what would you do with a slave that lived past old age? Like say someone who lived 10 years in a mine?

>>52682001
Make them cruel.

>>52706643
Because the argument isn't "SLAVERY BAD" it's "WHITE MANG" like it always is.

>>52706776
Carni =Flesh/Carcass
Fex=Maker

The word may also be used to describe a butcher.

>>52706797
this is, unfortunately, true.
the only conflict left would be exploration and discovery.

>>52706755
...nah, the Comanche were pretty huge dicks to everybody. Their economy was literally built on raiding - that doesn't make you a hole lot of friends.

The ancient Karankawa also filed their teeth to points and, according to numerous Spanish, Mexican, Anglo, and Indian first-hand accounts, ate people down to the marrow of their bones. They've even found grave-sites near known Karankawa settlements with the bones cracked and the marrow sucked out, with human teeth marks all over them.

There were a great many Indian tribes who got fucked HARD by the US and Europe for the simply crime of existing in the wrong place - but the Comanche, Apache, and Karankawa got exactly what was coming their way.

>>52706823
Sooo, Star trek?

>>52706802
When I say 'long' I mean, months... not years. Mining slaves just fucking wear out and perish, you don't get old doing that.

It's using flesh to do the work we wear down steel tractors and lifts to do now while being as economical as possible with your feedstock.

>>52706830
You know the indians took bondsman, correct? If they survived and lived with them long enough, they were treated like brothers.

It wasn't until their first bondsmen betrayed them that the practice of genocide started. And again, you are only talking about a handful of tribes.

>>52706878
>muh noble slavery
Every time.

>>52706868
designing and building those machines takes its toll on the people who make them. They have to devote their lives to understanding the machines and making them useful.

>>52706830
>They've even found grave-sites near known Karankawa settlements with the bones cracked and the marrow sucked out, with human teeth marks all over them.
Ritualistic cannibalism within the members of tribal societies as a cultural thing isn't all that uncommon nor to my mind particularly offensive, unless you are saying they ate strangers regularly which is more uncommon.

>>52706888
you have your lies, I have mine

>>52706742
>>52706776

I thought carnifex was just latin for butcher. Like that's how you'd refer to the nice roman fellow who prepared your meat. And that while it could be used euphemistically to refer to an executioner, didn't refer to a specific one.

>>52706734
>What are the benefits?

The benefits weren't in slavery, in and of itself, but on the massive amount of resource extraction it allowed by Old World entities like governments and corporate entities at a relatively low cost to them, essentially allowing European nations to catapult their economies and war machines to new heights and solidify the Industrial Revolution being a permanent thing. It also allowed for Europeans to push out all their undesirables to far-away shores where they would stop causing problems at home, allowing for a greater amount of homogeneity in their societies and to give these "undesirables" a location to live their lives in relative seclusion while still contributing to the home country. This didn't work long-term, but it DID work long enough for the European nations to build their power base and secure their place in the world as Big Dick Swangers.

Had the massive injection of rubber, silver, gold, and sugar into Europe not happened when it did, Europe would likely have collapsed in on itself and handed over supremacy of the Old World to the Islamic World, and we'd all be speaking Arabic or Turkic right about now.

>>52706939
Okay, but I don't see how that could benefit an industrial nation.

>>52706919
You're a lily-white neckbeard with a howling wolf t-shirt and a dreamcatcher tattoo who dreams of being a noble savage and cucking his neighbor.

How close am I?

>>52706964
You mean aside from the fact that you've got half the world working in sweatshops already?

>>52706982
you wouldn't know it by looking at me.

>>52706987
of course, my impressions of the 3rd world might be a bit dated. I live in a suburb.

>>52706878
>You know the indians took bondsman, correct?

Some of the hundreds of Indian tribes did, yes.

The Comanche were not one of those tribes as a general rule, especially if you were Mexican or black. Slaves were not valuable to Comanches - only guns, steel, and horses were of use to them.

The Apache sometimes took slaves, but sometimes they just bashed their heads in with rocks - once again, especially if they were Mexican or black.

>Ritualistic cannibalism within the members of tribal societies as a cultural thing isn't all that uncommon nor to my mind particularly offensive, unless you are saying they ate strangers regularly which is more uncommon.

They ate the bodies of their enemies and raid victims, including children. This is according to pretty much everybody who ever did anything with them ever, including other tribes, and cookpots filled with gnawed human bones too small to be adults have been confirmed discovered near former Karankawa settlements, matching what previous eyewitness reports describe.

Their tradition of cannibalism most likely arose from living in a protein-starved environment, necessitating the consumption of humans to meet necessary protein requirements. Remember, the ubiquitous horse, pig, cow, and deer were not plentiful in East Texas at the time, at least until the Mexicans and Anglos showed up. That's a long, long time for cannibalism to sink its teeth into the cultural psyche of the Karankawa.

None of these groups were "nice" people, and they lived as long as they did and accomplished as much as they did (the Comanche and Apache especially) BECAUSE they weren't nice people and were in fact very, very good at killing people they wanted to kill.

>>52706830
>the Comanche were pretty huge dicks to everybody
They traded just fine with the french who fucking loved Comanche horses as a trade good.

>>52707099
>They ate the bodies of their enemies and raid victims, including children. This is according to pretty much everybody who ever did anything with them ever, including other tribes, and cookpots filled with gnawed human bones too small to be adults have been confirmed discovered near former Karankawa settlements, matching what previous eyewitness reports describe.
Huh, neat stuff. Actual predatory cannibalism is rare as fuck.

>>52707162
Well the french are no strangers to being huge dicks, maybe they bonded over common ground?

>>52682001
Trandoshans enslave Wookies just because it's fun. And it gives their God a boner.

>>52707162
>They traded just fine with the french who fucking loved Comanche horses as a trade good.

That is because the French were never in large enough numbers to actually threaten the Comanche, and the few French that did exist were glorified Comancheros who the Comanche viewed as a necessary evil in getting good shit before Mexicans, Texans, and Americans moved close enough in large enough numbers to raid from.

The biggest problem with the Comanche was that they were wildly unpredictable diplomatically, and would do whatever they wanted if they thought they could get away with it. If you were too strong to take on, they would trade with you - but the moment you looked weak enough to be exploited they would take everything they had from you, including your life. Treaties were meaningless to them - from anybody, even other Indians - because the moment the other party could no longer enforce the treaty through sheer force of arms, it was viewed as being void in their eyes, and would act accordingly.

>>52682245
I wouldn't say machines "live long." Just about any piece of machinery I've worked on or around has a weekly, monthly, and quarterly maintenance schedule and chews through parts like they're candy. Anything that repeatedly and repetitively moves for most of the day will wear out in a matter of months, and will probably have a 10 year expected life span on paper. It'll usually manage to find some way to kill itself way before then though. In my mind, a slave owning society could be justified in a setting up until the widespread proliferation of nanomachines and frictionless materials.

>>52707099
well, you know, maybe if you didn't burn their fields, slaughter their millions of cattle overfish their rivers...

>>52707191
>Actual predatory cannibalism is rare as fuck.

It is. It most likely occurred because of the environment they lived in and then a heavily-ingrained social norm once their food sources expanded enormously.

While it's not known how MUCH of a cannibal society they were, they DID eat people regularly enough for it to be a normal occurrence, and it was most likely done when convenient.

>>52707287
>their their their their

I thought the magical Native American fairy folk didn't believe in ownership and slept with buffalo and spoke with the trees.

File: pupcerberus.jpg (31KB, 470x372px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 470x372px

>>52706446

>When the thread descends to shitty race baiting but someone comes along and maths the fuck out of OP's question giving it a quantitative answer

>>52707355
>I thought
moron

>>52707415
I know right. Is this chump serious? Thinking things... What a maroon!

>>52707447
>implying regurgitating nonsense is thinking
Next you'll tell me Cahokia was built by fucking fairies or something. The only reason this kind of belief is around is that it helped feed doctrines of Terra Nullius concerning the west.

>>52707287
>well, you know, maybe if you didn't burn their fields, slaughter their millions of cattle overfish their rivers...

They did all of this long before any white man showed up on the scene. In fact, they did it even more after the white man showed up because the white man gave them better tools to do it (in exchange for not starving), and on the East Coast a great many Indian tribes even went as far as to hire Anglo settlers as mercs in their own wars (and the Anglos fought to, once again, not starve).

The focus of their violence only changed over time.

You're ascribing some grand "cultural identity" to Indians as well, which literally never existed during the height of Indian civilizations and exists only in the classroom today at best.


Furthermore,

>slaughter their millions of cattle
>millions of cattle
>MILLIONS OF CATTLE

Do you have any idea how much fucking cattle you're talking about there? For reference, today, with massive breeding programs, dedicated agricultural infrastructure, and a massively increased demand, the state of Texas has only 11.3M cattle in the entire state. The state of Texas has far more people, far more cohesiveness, and covers a FAR greater range of territorry than any Indian tribe ever has in the history of the US, so the idea that any native society had "millions of cattle" is fucking ridiculous, given the incredible time, energy, labor, and resource expenditure that having that many animals entails.

>>52707415
What claim did they have to all the land and cattle?

>>52707517
>We herd them, we hunt there, we live there
Gee, idk, must be the wind telling them it belonged to them

>>52707460
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim, hopefully well researched and in-depth articles on the subject?

>>52707505
He was talking about the buffalo you dummy, which was estimated in the range of 20-30 million individuals,

>>52707535
>Gee, idk, must be the wind telling them it belonged to them

It did belong to them.

It also belong to somebody else until they took it from them.

And until that group took it from another group.

You can keep perpetuating the Noble Savage myth all you want, but you're a damned fool if you don't think it's violence and theft all the way down, through the course of our entire human history.

>>52707644
>He was talking about the buffalo you dummy,

That's not cattle.

In addition, the Plains Indians were just as big of contributors to their extinction as the Anglos were.

You don't get to pawn off all the problems of the Indians on the white man. They had complete agency in their own lives - at the end of the day, though, the just lost the culture war.

>>52707269
that really doesn't deserve a response.

You're not how it would be more efficient, you are just saying it would.

>>52707269
With an argument like that, I can see why, intellectually, people might not take your position very seriously.

>>52707383
if you know for a fact that all threads start off as crap you're going to have to stir the water a little before you cast your trowel.

>>52707708
>That's not cattle.
Well since to my knowledge the natives didn't prey on any other bovine in the continent and didn't domesticate any either untill euros brought them over that's the only thing he can be referring too.

Also I'm not arguing his points, just pointing out what he meant.

>>52682001
I would consider the way a Fascist state like the Nazis or Empire use slaves diferent then the way the American South did. The South used them as a permanent workforce, they may as well have been robots. The Empire uses slaves like the Nazis did though, they arn't so much using them as a workforce as getting cheep work out of a (to them) undesirable people on the way to exterminating them.

>>52707958
that seems fundamentally true.
slaves were too valuable.

>>52707708
>the Plains Indians were just as big of contributors to their extinction as the Anglos were.

yes, i see this now. I see that they were too set in the old ways and did not want to adapt to the new technologies.

There are many things that exist today that the plains peoples would have taken with them.

>>52708039
Slaves only became significantly valuable to american slave states (whether Brazil, the US or Caribbean colonies) after the pipeline for cheap slaves was turned off with the abolition of the slave trade in the early 19th century.

Before that the life expectancy of a slave in the caribbean was usually a decade or so.

>>52682001
Slaves feel pain

>>52708104
Eh the pipeline was turned off long after the US had a stable breeding population so it's not like they suddenly became scarce resources worth their weight in gold.

Also while the average life expectancy of slaves working in the tropics was abysmal, it wasn't like that was simply because the slaves were cheap, in fact they were still pretty valuable all things considered. It's just that there was still profit to be found and the shitty conditions were there regardless. Indentured servants in those conditions didn't last too long either and most freemen wouldn't do that kind of bullshit so working slaves to death made some economic sense, especially when sugar was still a luxury good.

Long before space travel, when we hadn’t even filled up Terra, there used to be dirtside frontiers. Every time new territory was found, you always got three phenomena: traders ranging out ahead and taking their chances, outlaws preying on the honest men — and a traffic in slaves. It happens the same way today, when we’re pushing through space instead of across oceans and prairies. Frontier traders are adventurers taking great risks for great profits. Outlaws, whether hill bands or sea pirates or the raiders in space, crop up in any area not under police protection. Both are temporary. But slavery is another matter — the most vicious habit humans fall into and the hardest to break. It starts up in every new land and it’s terribly hard to root out. After a culture falls ill of it, it gets rooted in the economic system and laws, in men’s habits and attitudes. You abolish it; you drive it underground — there it lurks, ready to spring up again, in the minds of people who think it is their ‘natural’ right to own other people. You can’t reason with them; you can kill them but you can’t change their minds.”

Even in the future, the technology available to a new colony is always initially low. If a machine to do a necessary job is too expensive to import (say a wheat harvester, a water pump, or even a washing machine), a human must do it instead. If too many jobs must be done by hand and there is a shortage of labour compared with independent resources that free labour could take up ("land", although this condition is not clear in the story), a market for slavery develops. Decades later, while there is still an abundance of land, this market remains because the colony itself has quotas to meet and debts to repay — they cannot spare the resources to develop local industries to make the machines themselves and free labour does not have to bid its price down enough to outcompete slave labour.

>>52708354
>You can’t reason with them; you can kill them but you can’t change their minds.”
If that were true, Lincoln would have been thrown out by his own Cabinet.

>>52708398
You need machinery just to be able to live in space. What kind of demand is there going to be for manual labor of any sort?

You can't use slaves for skilled labor.

>>52708580

>you can't use slaves for skilled labor

Actually slaves were often trained as artisans, and slave masters who had children by slaves would insure that their children learned a skilled trade because skilled slaves were treated as less expendable and had a higher standard of living.

>>52708580

Horse doesn't need-United-Steel argument. On a planet, it is highly inadvisable to utilize technology that cannot be supported by the planet's technology infrastructure. The home world might be using high tech goodies like The Jetsons, but the dirt poor colony worlds will be using stuff that is much less advanced.

Think about it. On a new colony planet with no infrastructure, automobiles are worthless. A vehicle that requires gasoline as fuel isn't going to work very well on a planet with no oil wells nor oil refineries. Importing gasoline from off world will just drive the price out of reach for everybody. Not to mention the lack of a local source for spare parts (requires iron ore mining, steel mills, coal mining, electrical power plants, and factories to manufacture spare parts). And local repairmen. If the vehicle itself is an off world import it too will be much too expensive for the locals to afford. Without a car assembly plant, there will be no new cars.

If the planet allows it, it make much more sense to import a breeding pair of horses and seeds of crops horses will eat.

File: 1244312505228.jpg (3MB, 2500x3334px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x3334px

>>52682001
Because we ain't no commie socialist liberals so no free handouts and all the means of production is consolidated to a few rich people so the only options for that masses is to scavenge at the edges of civilization while avoiding the private military police patrols or sell themselves into slavery to do whatever amuses the rich from lethal reality tv shows to carrying palanquins for their master's pets.

>>52708962
they both look idyllic.

>>52682154
these posts should be a bannable offence

>>52709163
You can't see the illness or the pollutants in the water and the private military police eviction crew is about to roll through to evict/enslave them for squatting on private land.

>>52709163
You can clearly see laser towers on the walls of the city, presumably forbidding humans entry.

File: firstthingithoughtof.png (1KB, 307x40px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 307x40px

>>52682001
It seems no one came to the OBVIOUS answer.
Shame

>>52682001
Labor has always been a secondary function of slavery. The primary purpose of slavery is to control an unruly population. Labor is simply extracted to mitigate the cost of the control system.

>>52710045
>The primary purpose of slavery is to control an unruly population

This is verifiably false in New World slavery, as the entire reason black slaves were brought to the New World was to extract resources, with absolutely zero care as to whether they survived the ordeal or not.

If it were about controlling populations, they'd have left the Africans where they were and just not even bothered with them.

>>52706644
Whether or not they are considered fully human isn't relevant. Everyone has a place, it's just some are meant to be lower than others and there may be little shame or pride in that, and it could be seen as a temporary state which will pass either in this lifetime or the next, with slaves potentially being afforded some rights. You can have slaves and treat them as your brothers in humanity. Social institutions themselves aren't the thing we find abhorrent in slavery unless we've embraced rebellion against order for it's own sake. Just as one may regard a pet or hired worker as being part of an actual bond and not just a means to an end, so is it that you can be ethical and own slaves. By incentivizing slave owners to approach it from that angle, a society could even be good while maintaining slavery.

>>52710072

>This is verifiably false in New World slavery, as the entire reason black slaves were brought to the New World was to extract resources, with absolutely zero care as to whether they survived the ordeal or not.

African slaves in the transatlantic slave networks originated as war captives taken by coastal African tribes in conflict with inland tribes (fighting wars is 'unruly' by definition). Slavery was common in African societies, as enslaving defeated enemies was a major status symbol. This followed the model of slavery in the classical world, which employed slavery to control criminals and war prisoners.

African slaves became highly valuable in New World colonies because they were resistant to tropical diseases which were wiping out both Europeans and natives in the Caribbean and tropical colonies ruled by Spain and Portugal (so their superior survivability was actually the point). In colonies ruled by Britain, slaves imported from Africa were originally treated as indentured servants, as slavery had been abolished in Britain about 400 years prior to them establishing colonies in the new world. Race based slavery was only implemented in British America after freed blacks proved to be unmanageable (due to high rates of crime and violence).

While there were many abuses and excesses, the idea that colonialism was solely about resource extraction and there was no concern for the wellbeing of slaves is simply a propaganda position.

>>52710072
>if it was about controlling populations, they would have done literally the one thing that doesn't control the population
Is this apologizing for the Jewish slave trade or are you just THIS titanically retarded?

>>52710365
see >>52710362

Slavery emerges in history as a means to control criminals and prisoners of war. It develops into a status symbol in some societies, and as source of labor when voluntary labor supplies are limited. Even societies which value liberty will resort to slavery if the work force they are employing proves otherwise unmanageable.

Most of what people think they know about slavery today is just abolitionist propaganda which has been repeated ad nauseum. Typical historic narratives around slavery as an institution are completely unrelated to the role slavery played in societies historically.

>>52710476
If you want to understand what a word means, you have to go to its etymological origin and to similar words in other languages. One of the consistent things about old world slavery was not that someone owned another person. Rather, the slave was in debt to their debt owner. With very few exceptions, there was an obligation that once the debt was paid the person was to be made free.
Thus, the Latin word for debt bondage is nexum. Let us make this clear. According to this system, in the Roman Republic/Empire slavery was based upon debt. Thus, if you owed any debt to another person, you were compelled to their service. Think about that for a second and let it sink in. In Rome, debt is slavery. Now look at the modern world–all the people who owe money to banks, student loans, mortgages. As far as the people 2 millennia ago were concerned, all these people in the modern world are slaves. Let that sink in for a while as well. You probably know a slave right now–you may, in fact, be one yourself.
This is also why the act of interest, usury, on a debt was considered abhorrent because it put people in perpetual debt. Even if all the debt was paid, you would still owe more than you gave. Yet we allow banks to do this in the modern age, thus perpetuating the slave trade of people through debt. People do not need to own you–ownership of another person is absurd. But ownership of a debt another owns to you? That is a very real problem. This may be one of the more profound realizations of your life when you realize how widespread slavery is today.

>>52683026
>>52706595

I assume that someone was behind it, otherwise how did a half-dozen AIs suddenly and simultaneously restart and decide to go 'kill all humans?'

>>52710362
>This followed the model of slavery in the classical world, which employed slavery to control criminals and war prisoners.

Correct, and that's exactly why the Africans built their slave system the way they did.

> African slaves became highly valuable in New World colonies because they were resistant to tropical diseases which were wiping out both Europeans and natives in the Caribbean and tropical colonies ruled by Spain and Portugal (so their superior survivability was actually the point).

They were also cheaper and easier to control as slaves compared to Indians and European undesirables, which were the Portuguese and English first choice - until they kept working them to death and couldn't afford more of them.

> In colonies ruled by Britain, slaves imported from Africa were originally treated as indentured servants, as slavery had been abolished in Britain about 400 years prior to them establishing colonies in the new world.

You mean social undesirables who were often herded onto ships by press-gangs and worked to death before their """contract""" was up, or had it postponed indefinitely? Who couldn't own any property without their masters consent, and often couldn't even have their own money? They were slaves, son, no matter how nicely the Crown tried to dress it up and pretend they were somehow good Christian souls. Unlike France, Spain, and Portugal (who had the Catholic Church up their asses) and the US (who lived among its slave empire) Britain was able to pretend like they weren't running a slave empire because all of their slaves lived out of sight and out of mind in the New World on islands run by private companies the Crown gave free reign.

>Race based slavery was only implemented in British America after freed blacks proved to be unmanageable (due to high rates of crime and violence).

Race-based slavery first arose on the island of Madeira, and then was perfected in Barbados, because it made their masters stupidly rich.

>>52710541

>You mean social undesirables who were often herded onto ships by press-gangs and worked to death before their """contract""" was up

Indentured workers weren't worked to death. Britain's colonies in the Caribbean had high death rates because of tropical diseases. Press gangs were implemented because workers were needed, and people stopped going voluntarily due to the high death rates. African slaves were brought in to fix the situation, as they lasted much longer due to their resistance to tropical diseases.

>They were slaves, son, no matter how nicely the Crown tried to dress it up

No, they were bound labor, prisoners perhaps, but not property. They could not be traded like cattle.

>Unlike France, Spain, and Portugal (who had the Catholic Church up their asses)

The Catholic empires practiced slavery for longer periods and at greater volumes than the British

>Britain was able to pretend like they weren't running a slave empire

It was The British empire which stamped out the global slave trade over the course of the 19th century. There is literally no other institution, including the Roman Catholic church, which spent more resources or sacrificed more lives to end the practice of slavery than the British Empire. The inevitable abuses British corporate interests were responsible for doesn't change the fact that British society brought freedom to much of the world, and that Britain's former colonies are among the world's most prosperous countries because of that legacy.

>>52710695
>It was The British empire which stamped out the global slave trade over the course of the 19th century.

Yeah, when they already had plenty of "totally not slaves, we promise, they're just not citizens and can't vote or own property or hold positions of power" on remote island facilities or in extremely isolated enclaves, ruled by quasi-legal corporate entities that the government could easily wash its hands of while still taking their cut - so of course they didn't need "real slaves" anymore. Their rivals the French, British, Portuguese, and Dutch, however...they still did. What a damn shame that doing Gods work just so happens to empower the Crown, right?

Furthermore, nobody ever ended the global slave trade, you idiot. There are proportionately even more slaves today than there ever were during the 19th century, even using older definitions of the term - many of them in former British territories, might I add, as well as Britain itself.

>The Catholic empires practiced slavery for longer periods and at greater volumes than the British

The Catholic Church did not practice slavery as an entity. Catholic COUNTRIES practiced slavery, and Rome was largely ambivalent about the subject until around the expansion of Spain into the New World, when it created the hacienda system to "enlighten" pagan Indians while "teaching them productive skills" (i.e. de facto slavery). Their moral high ground was just as tall as Britains was.

>No, they were bound labor, prisoners perhaps, but not property. They could not be traded like cattle.

They could and they were.

>and that Britain's former colonies are among the world's most prosperous countries because of that legacy.

Yeah, Burma, Thailand, Rwanda, Kenya, and Cambodia are all just doing great now because of Britain trying SO HARD to remove slavery.

You're believing WAY too much propaganda if you think for one goddamn second Britain didn't have just as much blood on their hands as everybody else.

>>52710859
>>No, they were bound labor, prisoners perhaps, but not property. They could not be traded like cattle.
>They could and they were.

To add more to this, this was explicitly allowed in British Virginia, Carolina, and Georgia, and was a tool to make a servant more pliable to his masters will - as oftentimes the time would be renewed when it was sold to another, and God help a servant who dared to disrespect his British superior in a Tidewater or Southern court.

>>52682001

>Why should a very advanced society use slaves? They could use robots.

Because we are the robots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As-iBOqACms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knOZU7UQIv8

>>52710859
>>52710911

Your positions are clearly based on false equivalencies. You're arguing that there is no moral or practical difference between major powers upholding systems which allowed human beings to be traded as commodities and major powers failing to be completely successful in suppressing human trafficking and forced labor. The world is, and always has been, a brutal and ugly place. You're claiming that since they failed to achieve utopia, the societies which have succeeded in making the world a less brutal and ugly place are not any different than the societies which contribute to its brutality and ugliness. That's completely indefensible, and you need to grow up.

>>52717781
>You're claiming that since they failed to achieve utopia, the societies which have succeeded in making the world a less brutal and ugly place are not any different than the societies which contribute to its brutality and ugliness.

No, I'm saying that GB never actually MADE the world a better place, and that their actions were just as equally abhorrent as other nations were.

The crown was able to have the best of both worlds - on the one hand, "slavery" was bad and illegal, and the crown could claim the moral high ground and say, "At least we don't use slaves!"

On the other hand, virtually every British territory was governed by quasi-legal government entities that had such an insanely long leash they could de facto do whatever they wanted. The Crown didn't care what they did, so long as they didn't get caught and the money kept flowing - you think it was a coincidence that many of these charter organizations and companies had board members in Parliament and other British government offices? Fuck no it wasn't, it was just good business sense for all parties involved.

This meant that places like Barbados (who had british sanction!) could create one of the most horrific slave societies ever seen in the New World (barring perhaps Brasil) while the Crown was able to look the other way while collecting their cut of the sugar profit - after all, Barbados was run by a business, and therefore wasn't representative of the British governments interest. Businesses sometimes did terrible things in the name of money, no doubt about it - but you can't blame the CROWN for the actions of a private citizen, can you? Of course not! That's why the Crown would take such DRASTIC measures as removing board members and arresting wrong-doers - only to put another crony in their place, and business would resume as usual until they got caught again, and the cycle could continue anew.

Britain just had the advantage of writing history.

>>52693858
Well, czech "robota" was labour serf provided to his feudal lord as rent for piece of land to sustain himself. It wouldnt be much of a stretch to call that slavery.

Czechs dont really use the word "robota" outside this meaning, altough i believe some other slavs do.

>>52682016
Both of those statements are incorrect. Try again.

>>52702319
See this is really interesting to me. Because in the United States, finding quiet happy existence is made out to be false/ inhumanly difficult. People who won the game have a vested interest in keeping everyone else as losers, but still playing that same game.

Also you own a few houses. For plenty of people that is an unrealistic notion. They'd settle for one that they can live in, but thats surprisingly hard to find in some places.

When you have success, recognize the luck that got you there. There was always luck. You could have just died.