This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
Probably. They might not be called slaves though and they would be paid.
Have you ever seen Upstairs Downstairs or Downton Abbey.
If technological development stalls and inequality keeps rising perhaps we will see the return of domestic service which was pretty close to slavery.
But historically it has been the other way about: having slaves means not needing to develop technology because someone else is doing the work and that someone else is a renewable resource.
Have you ever seen Upstairs Downstairs or Downton Abbey.
If technological development stalls and inequality keeps rising perhaps we will see the return of domestic service which was pretty close to slavery.
But historically it has been the other way about: having slaves means not needing to develop technology because someone else is doing the work and that someone else is a renewable resource.
popmol · 22-25, M
@ninalanyon nice :)
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@popmol I'm not sure that either Hitler or Ghengis Khan would have made a lasting difference. In world history terms over the centuries that is. A lot of the changes over the last 20 centuries have been the consequences of technological change.
For instance before 1900 people like me, degree educated, highly paid, with a professionally qualified wife, would probably have had a maid, possibly a cook. These domestic servants would have done all the time consuming parts of running the household but then along came washing machines, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and all of a sudden a lot of those things became something that any woman (sorry, it was always women) could do and still have time to spare. In addition new technology began to create other employment opportunities for the women who would otherwise have been maids, cooks, washer women etc. which began to drive up the cost of employing them as domestic servants and reduced the supply of women willing to do them.
Of course this took a long time. I think something like it is almost inevitable but of course reverses can occur and that is what worries me when it comes to rising inequality.
For instance before 1900 people like me, degree educated, highly paid, with a professionally qualified wife, would probably have had a maid, possibly a cook. These domestic servants would have done all the time consuming parts of running the household but then along came washing machines, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and all of a sudden a lot of those things became something that any woman (sorry, it was always women) could do and still have time to spare. In addition new technology began to create other employment opportunities for the women who would otherwise have been maids, cooks, washer women etc. which began to drive up the cost of employing them as domestic servants and reduced the supply of women willing to do them.
Of course this took a long time. I think something like it is almost inevitable but of course reverses can occur and that is what worries me when it comes to rising inequality.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@popmol Yes, I understood that. My point was that technological change tends to happen regardless of who is in charge. More slowly under some regimes than others of course but eventually it causes pressures that force changes even in regimes that actively try to prevent it.