Well I feel a little embarrassed at my ignorance and lack of knowledge about European history being exposed.
I'm not going to answer every point, since I am clearly wrong about a lot of things. I will try to answer a few questions or make some clarifications.
I would imagine slavery gets questioned all the time. Humans have been questioning slavery for as long as the institution has existed. I think that Socrates (or another Greek philosopher) called for slavery to be abolished, but the question at the time was 'to be replaced with what'?
It's interesting, since the first Engineer in history, a man named 'Hero' in 50 B.C., invented the first steam turbine. He thought it would be useful for opening temple doors, but speculated on other uses for it. Why didn't the Industrial revolution begin until 1700 years later? Slaves. The slave training houses created an uproar about how such a machine might put an end to slavery...and then what would become of all those unemployed slaves?
Well now i'm curious. I find it a bit stretched but what are your sources for that statement ? It sounds a bit... bold...
Well, the invention of the steam turbine in Ancient Greece is historical fact.
http://kotaku.com/5742457/the-ancient-greek-hero-who-invented-the-steam-engine-cybernetics-and-vending-machinesAs far as automation vs. slaves, doesn't it make logical sense that a machine would be preferable and more cost efficient to a slave if they were capable of the same work?
Have you heard of the story/ myth of the American slave Henry Clay vs. the steam engine?
Isn't it also plausible that one of the Greek philosophers (Socrates I believe) would have sympathized with the plight of the slaves, and made the argument for the abolition of slavery? I can find the quote somewhere in Plato's Dialogues perhaps, but considering how outspoken he was it doesn't seem that far fetched.
I don't disagree with the basic Prime Fiction statement that the Amarr society still has a lot of traditional fields like agriculture tended by slaves, but machines aren't exactly new in the Empire, and they even have a thousands time more advanced society than our current own IRL. They probably already knew how to harvest their crop with a single automated machine before even taking to the stars and the stargates above their world. And since a machine is cheaper to maintain, thousand times more efficient, it's only logical to go for the machine to gain an edge over your competitors.
It's even the precise reason of the opposition between the Caldari society and the Amarr society in the Prime Fiction itself ! The Caldari, being the pragmatics that they are, can't wrap their heads around the concept of slavery. It is stated to be completely alien to them, and the most frequent argument full of confusion you will hear from them is "but it's inefficient ! it makes no sense !".
The hint to a more logical answer lies probably in the concept of tradition.
Well, my point is that the wealthy Holders and perhaps the wealthy commoners could afford slaves, and would obviously prefer them for tradition and status. However, if you couldn't afford a slave, which would include their upkeep, training, discipline, etc. then you might turn to a machine replacement.
I understand that Amarr is exponentially more technologically advanced than our own society. Travelling through jump gates to other solar systems is hardly routine or even possible in our world. No one in history has been to another planet, although a few of us have walked on the moon.
That is what makes slavery seem like such an oddity to me. Why is it necessary or desirable? It works well as a story line, but my point is technology > slavery.
The Caldari are right. Slavery is inefficient. The Ancient Romans were learning that too. An owned slave has to be fed, cared for, clothed, housed, etc. even when they aren't working.
On the other hand,
a wage earning free man can be called to do the same work as a slave in exchange for just enough to house, clothe and feed themselves...and then they go home when they are no longer needed and are of no further concern or expense to you.
This is what happened in the United States as well with the Emancipation proclamation. Freed slaves had nowhere to go and knew of no other life, so many returned to their former Masters to do the same job they once did as slaves. The difference was that they now received a pittance of a wage in exchange for their labor, so they could buy their own food and shelter instead of the Master providing the food and shelter for them. Instead of the whip, an empty belly through lower wages was now the punishment for not working hard enough.
I can understand slave owning for the status. A pick up truck is more practical and logical to own than a Ferrari, but of course those who can afford a Ferrari might get one just for the thrills and the status.
I just imagine that it would be
slave replacing, labor saving technology specifically that would be familiar at least conceptually to the Amarrians, but likely not produced by them. Just as in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, hundreds of thousands of patents for labor saving devices are filed and never used, because they already breed the Epsilon class for heavy labor.
After all, a labor saving machine might be considered a destructive innovation which would mean less profit for the slave traders.
I suppose the comparison might be between the internal combustion engine which I personally consider undesirable and obsolete, and the electric cars or other means of transport which would replace it. These petroleum merchants are poisoning the planet with continent crossing pipelines which are disrupting the Indigenous people and destroying the natural environment. There are practical alternative solutions which have existed for decades, but the people selling us our petrol don't want to lose
any profits even if it means destroying the planet, and they have been bribing our Governments and Police forces in the process.
The technological means to end slavery DO exist. They have probably existed in Amarrian society for thousands of years. However, the wealthiest people in a society don't like it when anything threatens their position, and so they would take steps in order to remove the threat.
In a rigid hierarchical structure such as the Amarr empire, why wouldn't the Slave sellers/ owners approach the Theological council and ensure that any of the perceived future threats to their profits and/or way of life be suppressed or removed?
For example, J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison suppressing the work of Nikola Tesla because they thought some of his inventions might be a threat to the stability of their financial empire.
Buckminster Fuller said in the 1960s that we have to dismiss the idea that everyone should have to work all the time. Technology is gradually replacing labor, which is why we have 'Inspectors of inspectors of inspectors'. Fuller suggests that we should create a system where everyone is paid to go to school, pursue art or music and so on.
In other words, 'work' as it is commonly defined, which is unpleasant drudgery in exchange for sustenance and shelter, is largely obsolete and unnecessary today. That is likely more true today than it was a half a century ago.
The problem is, (my opinion) and it is now a global problem in this 'age of Austerity', is that we are still using an obsolete 2,000 year old model of the Roman Empire as a framework for our own, and the Roman Empire was based on military conquest and the institution of slavery.
The wealthiest industrialists, investors, bankers and so on of today are beginning to see that technology is quickly rendering human labour obsolete. However, what do we do with all of the unemployed? They still see poverty as a means for incentive. The carrot of the luxury item and the stick of homelessness.
For the first time in human history however, scarcity and poverty are conditions that are deliberately created, not the result of a natural disaster. There
could be a more equitable society, where everyone could pursue their interests and all the work would be done by machines. However, the most wealthy and powerful men on the planet are trying to hold that world back.
I apologize for the rant.
What I'm trying to illustrate here is why someone that has a business in the slave trade might want to keep an Android (or whatever) out of the Empire. There are, after all, a lot of unusual things that are contraband in the Amarr empire, such as Rock music, for seemingly no other reason than the Theological council forbids it.
Slavery is clearly mentioned in the scriptures as a necessary path to spiritual enlightenment, so wouldn't you be depriving a slave their entrance into Heaven by replacing them with a
soulless Android instead?
Scripture is the word of God after all, so it's pretty difficult to argue with a believer against it. This is especially true if you live in a Theocratic state.
Yes I understand that the Amarr have been in contact with the Caldari and the Gallente for hundreds of years. Anything that the Caldari or Gallente would use or manufacture would be easily available to most Amarrians. Also, at least half of Amarr (according to PF) are not even particularly religious but just go through the motions so as not to cause waves. So there would be no religious incentive to be a 'mentor' to a slave.
I just thought this clash of the 'old' and 'new' was meant to cause dynamic tension in the Prime Fiction. An Amarrian commoner who would prefer to by an Android, but who has to buy at least a doorman in order to keep up appearances. Perhaps it doesn't really matter if it is backstory.
Yes of course Empress Jamyl Sarum rocked the Empire not only with being a clone, but with her edict of manumission of a massive amount of slaves.
That would certainly cause a huge disruption in the balance of power and infuriate the Holders who likely owned these slaves.
Author
Topic: The nature of the Scriptures and the nature of the Clergy. (Read 5489 times)