Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
If you aren't accounting for the change in population and you're just comparing the estimated number of slaves, then you are definitely correct. However, I think its probably better to measure what percentage of the population is made up of slaves.
I agree, but that's also what I'm trying to say is that the natural scale of the population increase will still scale out to be a higher slavery total than back then, but that's total numbers, the percentages would be vastly different, like during the civil war era slaves were about 9.6% of the population of the US, but because of slavery not being tracked so closely now we couldn't get an accurate total for slavery in the modern era, and there would be nitpicking about what counts as slavery and what does not.
Always loved this logic.
There's more people enslaved today than there ever has been in the history of the world
No no, let's not think about it that way -
The percentage of people that are slaves is roughly the same or decreasing 🥰🥰🥰
Obviously there are going to be more total enslaved people now, it scales with the population. The problem with looking at it that way is that it doesn't actually tell you if the situation is improving. All it tells you is that there are way more people now. That's why you look at a percentage. That will tell you how bad the problem was, how much better its gotten, and how much better it needs to get.
I'm not trying to argue that everything is ok because a smaller percentage of people are enslaved now. A percentage is simply the more useful method of measuring how common slavery is and comparing it to different times.