Last updated on 2023-04-11
I was listening to a podcast with Will MacAskill and Ezra Klein and this exchange struck me as unlikely to be true:
EZRA KLEIN: And it should be said, there’s still pockets of slavery today, but —
WILLIAM MACASKILL: There’s still pockets of slavery today.
EZRA KLEIN: — in terms of large-term values, it isn’t seen as acceptable.
WILLIAM MACASKILL: In the world today, especially if you include forced marriage, something like 0.5 percent of the world’s population is in some form of slavery. But for context, in 1700, that number was like three quarters of the world’s population. So the sheer prevalence of slavery in history is often underappreciated. I didn’t appreciate it until I really started learning about this.
I immediately asked myself, “Was 75% of the world’s population enslaved in 1700?”
To be fair, MacAskill is (I think rightfully) including women in forced marriages in that number, which will likely push that number much higher than without. But I think we would have to broaden the definition of slavery beyond recognition – to include disadvantageous working conditions, child workers, and others who lack agency – to get anywhere near his stated 75%.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the only part of the world approaching MacAskill’s number is coastal African countries. Even at the peak of slavery in the United States, the number of slaves was greater than 50% in four states (where cotton was grown), but the overall percentage was nowhere near 75%. In 1700, there were also indentured servants, child laborers, and women in forced marriages. I am not sure how to approximate those numbers accurately. . . But looking at historical numbers this morning, I am not seeing support for the 75% figure.
Obviously, I am not trying to say or imply that historical slavery was not bad. I am just wondering where he got that figure, and why he chose 1700. If you define a slave as one with a lack of agency who is compelled to do unpleasant things, I think you can get to the 75%. But I think that is overbroad – it would include employment and other arrangements we do not typically consider slavery.
If he had said that in 1700, 75% of the world population did not have political agency and was forced to do hard work to survive, I would not have questioned the number stated. But maybe that is too broad? Maybe we need to parse the definition of slavery to not be so broad to include people simply because they lack self-determinization. Or maybe that broader definition is correct?
. . . I have other thoughts about this interview, about long-termism and other exchanges – particularly where Ezra pushed back on some of the arguments MacAskill was making.
As a final note, The Root has a good article with some startling facts about slavery in the USA.