this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
346 points (98.3% liked)

World News

39379 readers
3530 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mycodesucks 35 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Not to be defeatist, but...

We didn't abolish slavery... we just replaced it with wage slavery. Sure, the workers are free to leave - and try to survive with no other job opportunities and no money. In fact, for the employers, this is actually preferable to real slavery, because there are lower upfront costs for your slaves, they don't try to run away or rebel, you don't have to pay for their healthcare or long term care, and in many places government tax dollars will subsidize their living expenses. Employers have it WAY better with wage slaves than real slaves.

Child labour is still alive and well in many countries, and even there the ball is rolling on rolling THAT back in the US at least.

I admire your positivity, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[–] Etterra 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Don't forget prison labor slavery, especially in the south. It was specifically added for that very reason.

[–] doingthestuff 10 points 6 months ago

And also actual old-fashioned slavery. I've read there are more slaves in the world today than there were in the 1700s. Even modern western countries aren't immune, it's just more invisible .Sex trafficking is a good chunk of this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you really think that wage slavery is comparable to being owned by a human, then you're delusional.

Yes, slavery and child labour still exists. But if you think living in the US or China or India in 2024 is just as bad as 1850, then you are also delusional.

Some countries like Afghanistan or North Korea might be objectively worse, but those are a minority.

[–] mycodesucks 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Okay, I can see how you got that from my post. I was a bit hyperbolic in my original post, and I apologize.

I'm not REALLY making a moral equivalence argument or saying anything about comparing the horrors of slavery to work... I'm saying getting rid of slavery was easier to enact because there was an alternative system that happened to be ultimately profitable for the rich at the same time. Yes, wars have been fought to stop abolition, but at the end of the day, after slavery was abolished, the rich found a way to stay rich almost everywhere - abolition came at very little real change to the wealth structure of society. They had a supply of labor to exploit for profit during slavery, and they had one after. The fact is that the moral and financial interests both aligned on making abolition happen - it wasn't caused by pure strength of willpower. And yes, the system we have now is MUCH MUCH better than true slavery, but it's still a stretch to use the current system as a beacon of hope.

On climate change the moral and financial interests are NOT aligned in a clear way. There are always still going to be financial incentives to screw the climate for extra money. By comparison, if slavery were somehow legal again TODAY, it's not clear it would be profitable for anybody to actually do it. That difference will make climate goals harder to enact.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There will always be winners and losers with any change.

Plantation owners definitely lost a lot of wealth due to the abolition of slavery, while the industrial tycoons gained a lot of wealth.

Switching away from fossil fuels will similarly benefit those who invest in the energy sources and technologies of the future, while shrinking the fortune of those dependent on fossil fuels.

Already, some forms of fossil energy are losing new investment.

For example, the high profile Keystone XL pipeline was never built, even though Trump approved it, because investors doubted its profit potential. Biden revoking the permit was mostly symbolic.

Now, I do otherwise agree with this more nuanced take of yours. Morality needs to be aligned with financial incentives in order to achieve change. That's just how our current world works and I don't see that basic mechanism changing.

So it makes more sense to focus on making fossil fuels less profitable, e.g. through taxation.

[–] mycodesucks 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree with your conclusion, but I don't agree that it's feasible. Any tax solutions will involve legislation by a government owned by those same interests. And even if you managed it in major economies, you'd just force the climate issues into places with fewer qualms about their fuel usage. I'd love to see this problem solved, but my faith in our ability to resolve it is far less than yours.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Once the alternatives become more profitable, they will move to legislate in their favour.

Here in Europe, we already have billions in subsidies for wind and solar energy.

Will it go smoothly, or fast enough?

No, I think 3 degrees warming is basically inevitable at this point.

But it will happen, about five decades later than it should have happened.

Guess we will see in the next two decades.

[–] mycodesucks 2 points 6 months ago

I hope for everyone's sake you're right, but if that does come to pass it will come as a surprise to me.

[–] Kyrgizion 3 points 6 months ago

I agree, all the evils of yesteryear are still there and active, just either well-hidden or people simply don't care/pretend not to know (cfr football world championships in Qatar, ...).

We've made enormous progress technologically, but humans are still the exact same as 2000 or 5000 years ago. We've changed exceedingly little in that time, and the few things that have changed could be reverted very quickly if shove comes to push concerning climate collapse etc.