How can we discuss an issue that we haven’t defined?
How can you use a computer if you don’t know how to make one
I couldn’t use a computer if no one could make one. It’s the same with definitions
Literally what was quoted from Wikipedia.
If you can’t behave I’ll put this topic on cooldown.
Wikipedia’s definitions are designed for human slavery, and do not apply properly to more alien societies
If something doesn’t apply to the broadest definition of slavery, then it is not slavery. It’s as simple as that. Language is a tool to communicate between people, and for that communication to be effective at all you need to have common words that have a commonly agreed upon definition (or at least mostly the same). So you cannot claim that something that isn’t in the definition of “slavery” is slavery and also claim to speak English at the same time. You are free to come up with your own definition / alternative term for what you want to talk about but then that’s offtopic for this thread as it isn’t slavery as understood by other people what that term means.
4 Likes
What about cases of ambiguity, where we can’t solidly say whether or not the definition applies? How do we consider such examples?
Did you read the definition? It’s very broad already, and seems to be very competently made so that if you remove any part of the very broad definition, you no longer have a definition for what you want to talk about in the first place. For example hive minds have had multiple threads over the years talking about them, so you can take the talk about them to those threads.
Are the zooids of a modular being all enslaved? What about a being instinctively drawn to a job they hate? Is a wall made of sessile sophonts wholly enslaved? Is it still slavery if the enslaver is a beast with no concept of property or personhood? Or what if the slave and owner show different aspects of sapience? And then which one even is the slave?
Everybody hates working
You seem to be just wanting to talk about different kind of organisms with “distinct” parts, eusocial organism, or hive minds. None of those count as slavery in my opinion because they are variations of “this whole counts as a single entity” or that they have evolved so close cooperation that they have so strong instincts to participate in that that it can’t be considered coerced activity.
Seems like not a thing that can evolve naturally, because if the species hates something it can’t at the same time have an intrinsic behaviour to do that activity, thus it won’t evolve. You need intelligence first before your species can start complaining about Mondays but go about their business anyway.
What about the last three points? They have absolutely nothing to do with eusociality or hive minds, and you haven’t covered them
So why can’t an intelligent individual hate its own instinctive behaviors?
They seem to be some kind of symbiotic relationship? Or like animal husbandry.
They obviously can (case in point humans), but then we are in the awakening stage and can apply human concepts much more clearly.
I’m tired of trying to debate about this so I’ll set this thread to slow mode.
The concept of slavery is one of the most well-defined terms we have in the register of human rights because the international community wants to make sure there is absolutely no question in its prosecution. The most important aspect of slavery is “consent” - if someone did not grant consent to be put in a state of work and has no ability to act on that lack of consent, it’s slavery plain and simple. Very little room for ambiguity.
I echo the above, this conversation doesn’t seem productive at all; and what-abouting everything doesn’t do anything to help it. The bottom line is that the ability to clearly comprehend consent and will is a pre-requisite to slavery: without this consent, the term slavery is questionable. And besides, I really doubt we’d approach the topic in Thrive given how immoral it is.
2 Likes
didn’t this topic get banned after a incident in take 1?
2 Likes
But only because it is in the game it doesn’t mean you are endorsing it.
Standing in a line is not symbiosis, nor is it husbandry. You also never explained why these can’t be slavery
This discussion is clearly about awakening and beyond. When else is slavery going to happen?
Yes, human slavery is well defined. That doesn’t help us with nonhuman slavery
So all modular organisms are made of slaves?
How else do we point out failures of a definition without saying where it fails?
ok, but what if they used hydrothermal vents to smeltl the metal instead of slavery?
slavery solved.
3 Likes
See the above point about consent (wasn’t posted by me).
If a species is not smart enough to give consent, they don’t seem to be able to be enslaved due to the definition. That’s why I brought up animal husbandry as that’s what we call it when humans do that.
It seems you are claiming that naturally evolving species relationships can be slavery. And now you are going back? I don’t get what’s your point at all. Is it to try to make everyone else run out of sanity so that you win?
It 100% does. We humans made the English language, so we also selected the definition of things and based on those definitions we talk about it.
If you consider them separate entities from the “main body” which have enough intelligence of their own to understand the concept of consent and not give it or even revoke consent from being part of that, then yes, it matches the definition of slavery.
Formica Sanguinea, more commonly know as the (Blood Red) Slave Maker Ant raids nests of Lasius Niger, Myrmica Jessensis and many other Formica Ants. It can infriltarte the nest of a Formica species and kill the queen, rubbing the corpse on it’s body to gain the scent and fool the workers, or they can directly attack other nests and steal larvae and pupae.
I’d say non-human slavery can be easily defined as this is just 2 of the 6 ways ants have developed slavery, albeit it will be easy to use human slavery when talking in terms of the later stages.
1 Like