Alara
Spectator
Hi everybody, finally writing the post I wanted to when I registered a long while ago.
So OK, something I've been obsessed with for a long time is making a fictional world with legal slavery, populated with modern people you can relate to that doesn't completely shatter my suspension of disbelief.
Like, if I read or watch something in a science fiction setting I have this thing where I'm taken out of the story more strongly if they mention they still have the death penalty, for example, than I am by any magical scifi technology. Like, nowadays even most 3rd world countries have abolished it, but it's still going to be around 200 years from now? Nah, don't buy it.
Likewise, If I have a near future / scifi / contemporary AU scenario containing slavery, I'm always nagged somewhat by thoughts of how this would even work with modern attitudes that make the whole fantasy feel unreal.
OTOH, I'm also not convinved it *can't* be made to work.
I've found the discussion in these old threads (and other by @KageKamen ) really interesting and along my lines of thinking and would like to try to talk about this subject a bit more, in depth:
https://www.cruxforumslaverycom/xf/threads/global-slave-trade-and-demographics-modern-au.8759/
https://www.cruxforumslaverycom/xf/threads/slave-trade-in-a-globalised-world.9249/
So, in detail, what are the arguments against a future slavery scenario working?
Practically:
Slavery doesn't make economic sense compared to free workers. That's probably true for normal jobs and the kind of slavery that existed in the Roman Empire or the New World, where the focus was on economic production. However, this doesn't rule out uses where slavery is the point, i.e. slaves as a luxury good or object of prestige, which many past societies also had.
Theoretically:
Slavery can't be justified anymore after the Enlightenment.
That's more complex. When they put together modern Enlightenment philosophy in the 17th and 18th century they wrote a lot about the subject. They came to different conclusions and frequently also drew a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude, which to us seems pretty similar. Some of the Enlightenment jurists had a pretty logical answer: The didn't like slavery, but thought it was generally permissible in every instance where it's also permissible to kill someone, as the milder measure.
Slavery wasn't necessarily abolished because of this debate, but for historical reasons: First it became identified completely with the racism of New World slavery and then the global abolishment of slavery served as an opportune pretext for the British Empire for more colonialism, which also wasn't purely benevolent and altruistic.
So, to settle the theoretical debate, let's look at where new slaves historically came from:
1) Birth
2) Warfare
3) Debts
4) Self-enslavement
5) Criminal punishment
1) is the most obviously out. Heredity of social status is the one thing completely abhorrent to post-Enlightenment people. 2), well there are the UN and the Geneva conventions, even when people don't abide by them they acknowledge their general desirability.
5), no, not really (or at least not directly, see further down). Criminal punishments have been on average getting more humane for centuries. Though, tbh, for countries that still do have the death penalty, slavery would obviously be a milder punishment, so the humanitarian argument doesn't quite work there.
3) has at least a strong consensual component, but otoh, bankruptcy protections for debtors have also generally strengthened, so again, no, at least not directly.
This leaves 4) as last and strongest candidate. Now, while it isn't legal nowadays to sell oneself into slavery, you really can ask the question why it *shouldn't* be, in a post-Enlightenment society based on people's self-determination. You can find some philosophical discussion on this, but they all seem to be arguing backwards from the conclusion. Also, we live in a time, when more and more liberal countries acknowledge people to have a general right to euthanasia if they want to, which has the same issue of irreversibility and is arguably a more extreme exercise of personal autonomy than selling oneself into slavery. So by this logic, you could imagine a future scenario where this prohibition falls and that's what I would go with.
OK, if I have this idea of a future society where it was in principle legal for people to sell themselves into a state like slavery, how and why would this practically be even a thing? Why would there be interest in this, who would buy a slave, would anybody use this to really sell themselves as slaves?
Yeah, pretty certainly. I don't need to tell people here that there are people who would like to own a slave. And as for supply, there's a prize for everything.
It wouldn't need to be for life, and that wouldn't even make the most sense. Say, a typical slavery contract runs for 1-5 years. If the price of the slave is much larger than what you typically would earn in this time, yes, I think there would be takers. Think it like, the modal prospective slave owner is a male billionaire or upper multi-millionaire, the modal prospective slave is a young adult woman without great other carreer prospects. Now, in more liberal countries right now he can basically already hire her as a live-in prostitute, if both are so inclined. But if he would be willing to pay a lot more for a slave girl, with whom he didn't have to negotiate over everything and who would be great for bragging rights for a man who already has everything and she would be willing to chance it for this time, so that she could be finally manumitted as a wealthy woman, it would basically be a win-win scenario. In such a society I could totally see myself taking such an offer if I were 10 years younger and in different circumstances.
In such a society a slave would be something in between a Ferrari and a yacht. A symbol of the richest and most exclusive people (though, if it's set slightly in the future, there of course could be a lot of very rich people).
Slaves would have certain rights, they obviously couldn't be killed or irreversibly damaged and their money would have to be put untouchably into a bank, but everything below that could be fair game.
And if we accept everything so far, more avenues for slavery would logically open up. To 5) sentencing someone to slavery for a crime would be against human rights, but if you are *already* in prison for say 8 years and you yourself volunteer to exchange that for 4 years of slavery, to be sold to the highest bidder? Some of the sales price could be used to compensate your victim(s), the rest you would get after manumission. Slavery would certainly much more unpleasant than prison, but you would be free sooner and you would be released with a sizeable sum of money. Again, everybody wins in this scenario, criminal, their victims, society.
And to 3), of course not for normal debts, but if we go along with everything so far, I don't see how you could forbid people from using conditional slavery contracts as collaterals for loans you absolutely couldn't get otherwise.
Especially the latter two methods would most likely also yield a lot of male slaves. Well, some rich men are gay and I suspect male slaves would be a lot cheaper than female ones, so there would probably be a lot of not quite as rich people settling for one. Yes, there are rich women too, but like with prostitution, I suspect this they would at most be a small part of the customer base.
Sorry for the very long post, but this would be the most "realistic" idea for a modern world with legal slavery I could come up with. We like choice, economic growth and GDP going up in the modern world and this would serve all three. Also, I find the idea utterly fascinating.
How about you, would these thoughts pass your 'suspension of disbelief'-test? How could you imagine people acting in such a world, what would be some consequences I didn't think of?
So OK, something I've been obsessed with for a long time is making a fictional world with legal slavery, populated with modern people you can relate to that doesn't completely shatter my suspension of disbelief.
Like, if I read or watch something in a science fiction setting I have this thing where I'm taken out of the story more strongly if they mention they still have the death penalty, for example, than I am by any magical scifi technology. Like, nowadays even most 3rd world countries have abolished it, but it's still going to be around 200 years from now? Nah, don't buy it.
Likewise, If I have a near future / scifi / contemporary AU scenario containing slavery, I'm always nagged somewhat by thoughts of how this would even work with modern attitudes that make the whole fantasy feel unreal.
OTOH, I'm also not convinved it *can't* be made to work.
I've found the discussion in these old threads (and other by @KageKamen ) really interesting and along my lines of thinking and would like to try to talk about this subject a bit more, in depth:
https://www.cruxforumslaverycom/xf/threads/global-slave-trade-and-demographics-modern-au.8759/
https://www.cruxforumslaverycom/xf/threads/slave-trade-in-a-globalised-world.9249/
So, in detail, what are the arguments against a future slavery scenario working?
Practically:
Slavery doesn't make economic sense compared to free workers. That's probably true for normal jobs and the kind of slavery that existed in the Roman Empire or the New World, where the focus was on economic production. However, this doesn't rule out uses where slavery is the point, i.e. slaves as a luxury good or object of prestige, which many past societies also had.
Theoretically:
Slavery can't be justified anymore after the Enlightenment.
That's more complex. When they put together modern Enlightenment philosophy in the 17th and 18th century they wrote a lot about the subject. They came to different conclusions and frequently also drew a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude, which to us seems pretty similar. Some of the Enlightenment jurists had a pretty logical answer: The didn't like slavery, but thought it was generally permissible in every instance where it's also permissible to kill someone, as the milder measure.
Slavery wasn't necessarily abolished because of this debate, but for historical reasons: First it became identified completely with the racism of New World slavery and then the global abolishment of slavery served as an opportune pretext for the British Empire for more colonialism, which also wasn't purely benevolent and altruistic.
So, to settle the theoretical debate, let's look at where new slaves historically came from:
1) Birth
2) Warfare
3) Debts
4) Self-enslavement
5) Criminal punishment
1) is the most obviously out. Heredity of social status is the one thing completely abhorrent to post-Enlightenment people. 2), well there are the UN and the Geneva conventions, even when people don't abide by them they acknowledge their general desirability.
5), no, not really (or at least not directly, see further down). Criminal punishments have been on average getting more humane for centuries. Though, tbh, for countries that still do have the death penalty, slavery would obviously be a milder punishment, so the humanitarian argument doesn't quite work there.
3) has at least a strong consensual component, but otoh, bankruptcy protections for debtors have also generally strengthened, so again, no, at least not directly.
This leaves 4) as last and strongest candidate. Now, while it isn't legal nowadays to sell oneself into slavery, you really can ask the question why it *shouldn't* be, in a post-Enlightenment society based on people's self-determination. You can find some philosophical discussion on this, but they all seem to be arguing backwards from the conclusion. Also, we live in a time, when more and more liberal countries acknowledge people to have a general right to euthanasia if they want to, which has the same issue of irreversibility and is arguably a more extreme exercise of personal autonomy than selling oneself into slavery. So by this logic, you could imagine a future scenario where this prohibition falls and that's what I would go with.
OK, if I have this idea of a future society where it was in principle legal for people to sell themselves into a state like slavery, how and why would this practically be even a thing? Why would there be interest in this, who would buy a slave, would anybody use this to really sell themselves as slaves?
Yeah, pretty certainly. I don't need to tell people here that there are people who would like to own a slave. And as for supply, there's a prize for everything.
It wouldn't need to be for life, and that wouldn't even make the most sense. Say, a typical slavery contract runs for 1-5 years. If the price of the slave is much larger than what you typically would earn in this time, yes, I think there would be takers. Think it like, the modal prospective slave owner is a male billionaire or upper multi-millionaire, the modal prospective slave is a young adult woman without great other carreer prospects. Now, in more liberal countries right now he can basically already hire her as a live-in prostitute, if both are so inclined. But if he would be willing to pay a lot more for a slave girl, with whom he didn't have to negotiate over everything and who would be great for bragging rights for a man who already has everything and she would be willing to chance it for this time, so that she could be finally manumitted as a wealthy woman, it would basically be a win-win scenario. In such a society I could totally see myself taking such an offer if I were 10 years younger and in different circumstances.
In such a society a slave would be something in between a Ferrari and a yacht. A symbol of the richest and most exclusive people (though, if it's set slightly in the future, there of course could be a lot of very rich people).
Slaves would have certain rights, they obviously couldn't be killed or irreversibly damaged and their money would have to be put untouchably into a bank, but everything below that could be fair game.
And if we accept everything so far, more avenues for slavery would logically open up. To 5) sentencing someone to slavery for a crime would be against human rights, but if you are *already* in prison for say 8 years and you yourself volunteer to exchange that for 4 years of slavery, to be sold to the highest bidder? Some of the sales price could be used to compensate your victim(s), the rest you would get after manumission. Slavery would certainly much more unpleasant than prison, but you would be free sooner and you would be released with a sizeable sum of money. Again, everybody wins in this scenario, criminal, their victims, society.
And to 3), of course not for normal debts, but if we go along with everything so far, I don't see how you could forbid people from using conditional slavery contracts as collaterals for loans you absolutely couldn't get otherwise.
Especially the latter two methods would most likely also yield a lot of male slaves. Well, some rich men are gay and I suspect male slaves would be a lot cheaper than female ones, so there would probably be a lot of not quite as rich people settling for one. Yes, there are rich women too, but like with prostitution, I suspect this they would at most be a small part of the customer base.
Sorry for the very long post, but this would be the most "realistic" idea for a modern world with legal slavery I could come up with. We like choice, economic growth and GDP going up in the modern world and this would serve all three. Also, I find the idea utterly fascinating.
How about you, would these thoughts pass your 'suspension of disbelief'-test? How could you imagine people acting in such a world, what would be some consequences I didn't think of?
Last edited:
