Honorverse Top Ten Tacticians, Strategists

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:First: we are talking about indentured servants (not slaves) in this time period.
Second: the time period is more than six hundred years ago (which is the start of Malign), so it is long before the use of prolong (several hundred years).

So Leonard and his backers have already made huge investments in a planet and an industry and some of it can be self-sustaining; such as the food industry and other purely internal functions. But there will remain the need for imports and so at some point there must be exports. I agree that they have to design and develop servant lines that will be in demand in twenty years time, which such capabilities that would out class any normal worker from the general population (which already includes those with adaptations for higher gravity).

I think that even the Malign had to worry about profit and loss; it is just that their business plan did not resemble a normal business, but is closer to the economics of a ambitious country.

I would think that early on the vast majority of the genetic indentured servants would be used in the new colony's internal economy. They need mining, food production, industrialization, cities built, etc. etc. etc. At that point they'd effectively be a nationalized resource. And even today there's still a vast number of slaves (and descendants of freed slaves) deeply entrenched in the Mesa system's internal economy.

Absolutely. That is what I meant upstream about reinvesting them back into the business. Also, there would need to be some period of observation of the new product before marketing them. You don't want to sell a product and then later have to orchestrate a galaxy-wide recall because of some latent but serious defect like Bardasano. All manner of products are generally tested before distribution.

Jonathan_S wrote:So the sale of them has never needed to be their sole economic justification.

Still, part of the reason they're still part of the planet's economy is to justify the need to continue making slaves. They are economically inefficient, and Mesa would be better off transitioning to higher skilled less manpower intensive methods.

I think being economically inefficient is the nature of the game, initially. It is like the very early years when Japan solely invested millions in robotics knowing it would not turn a profit for decades. Now, their investment in the tech is putting entire foreign companies out of business. It is the long range business model. Long range strategic thinking is the Hallmark of the MA.

They save on salary, retirement plans, etc.

Jonathan_S wrote:Also their indentured servants, or later slaves, don't necessarily have to outclass regular human workers (though of course it's helpful if they do; and seemingly a big part of their marketing). But in many cases it can be enough that they're more expendable than regular human workers; and can't demand the same kind of safety protections you'd need to attract and retain free workers. (Plus the small market of people who simply enjoy having complete power over another human -- to whom the whole selling point is that they are a slave)

They should also be more versatile. And their attitude and commitment should be off the scale. Imagine the devotion of a worker approaching cult status. Their work ethics being totally alien.

"You mean to tell me he has never taken a sick day? He has never missed a single day in twenty-five years?"

"Nope, fifty."

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:So his original vision appears to have already been going off the rails during his lifetime. He wasn't able to prevent the “indentured servant” test subjects from becoming permanent 2nd class Seccies residents (not even citizens). And after his death, and with Beowulf's horrified reaction to that widespread experimentation on the “indentured servants”/"genetic slaves", his successors just became more extreme and paranoid.

The transition from indentured worker to genetic slave did not occur in Leonard's lifetime. Check the passage in chapter 10 of Storm from the Shadows, pointing to when the Detweilers went underground

Jonathan_S wrote:Ah, that's on me. I seem to have accidently edited out the specific nuance I was aiming for; during one of my revisions of that post.

The system that existed during Leonard's time definitely wasn't what genetic slavery evolved into. That transition was later; after he was gone. That's something my post did almost somewhat alluded to; when I mentioned that it was his successors that started selling them outside of Mesa.

However the part I lost was the distinction between when Beowulf started calling it genetic slavery and when Mesa did.
Oops.
My reading of RFC's old post is that Beowulf started calling it genetic slavery even in its early, softer, form; so during Leonard's lifetime.
At one point I'd had something along the lines that even while Leonard viewed them as indentured, and required the Mesan constitution contain clauses to free them, Beowulf had started calling them genetic slaves. And I'd had that somewhere before my line "Beowulf's horrified reaction to that widespread experimentation on the “indentured servants”/"genetic slaves"" (Hence why I included both phrases that still existing statement. Unfortunately, by losing that setup, what's left now failed to present that distinction.

Sorry about that

And Beowulf would have been right. I wish I had RFC's old post a while back when I argued with someone that there is such a fine fragile line between indentured servant and slave that it ought not exist. For all intents and purposes in this context they are the same.

If you are engineered for a particular purpose (without the option that life ordinarily provides to be all you can be), you are a slave.

cthia wrote:And Beowulf would have been right. I wish I had RFC's old post a while back when I argued with someone that there is such a fine fragile line between indentured servant and slave that it ought not exist. For all intents and purposes in this context they are the same.

If you are engineered for a particular purpose (without the option that life ordinarily provides to be all you can be), you are a slave.

One obvious difference is that the indentured contract is for a fixed period of time. If you mean that an indentured servant can be treated as badly as a slave, then it is equally likely that an ordinary servant can be treated as badly as a slave; it all depends on whether society offers the poor any protection from the rich. Note that the original colonies had both slavery and indentured servitude, but I am not aware of studies of the differences and similarities.

Being "all that you can be" is always within the limits that your abilities permit. But are you saying that a boy genetically engineered to be the perfect footballer will be a slave to his parents desires all his life? Or a slave freed by the RMN will still be a slave all life long? Being a slave means that you have no freedom of action, not that your actions are limited by what your body can accomplish. Ordinarily disease or old age will limit a body more than genetic engineering, because a slave that requires more care and treatment than a normal human being is unlikely to be preferred over a normal human being.

Beowulf called the indentured servants "slaves" to indicate their displeasure, however it is only when Mesa starting called them slaves that their status was truly changed. Before then Mesa had to act on that difference, after that they could do as they pleased.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:And Beowulf would have been right. I wish I had RFC's old post a while back when I argued with someone that there is such a fine fragile line between indentured servant and slave that it ought not exist. For all intents and purposes in this context they are the same.

If you are engineered for a particular purpose (without the option that life ordinarily provides to be all you can be), you are a slave.

One obvious difference is that the indentured contract is for a fixed period of time.

True, but that doesn't change things as far as I am concerned. Being all you can be should start when you are a kid with positive reinforcement from ones parents that "you can be anything you want to be." One obvious thing missing is the love and warmth one gets from loving and supportive parents. Do consider that the initial job lot of millions will have no parents.

"For a limited period of time" is also a slap in the face in the face of a very limited lifespan. It still wouldn't change the calculus even if they were given prolong.

One of my friends likened it to being wrongfully incarcerated for a long time. Sure, the victim may be relieved to finally get his freedom back, but decades of ones life cannot be retrieved.

If someone is born the traditional way by two parents cuddling and smoking a cigarette afterwards, and the child grows up and decides to become an indentured servant, then that is different. Any other means is just plain old slavery. No bones about it.

tlb wrote: If you mean that an indentured servant can be treated as badly as a slave, then it is equally likely that an ordinary servant can be treated as badly as a slave; it all depends on whether society offers the poor any protection from the rich. Note that the original colonies had both slavery and indentured servitude, but I am not aware of studies of the differences and similarities.

I don't think that should matter except topically, if in either case the victim is free to cut and run. "To hell with this! I'm outta here!" If fleeing is not an option, then you are a slave.

tlb wrote:Being "all that you can be" is always within the limits that your abilities permit. But are you saying that a boy genetically engineered to be the perfect footballer will be a slave to his parents desires all his life?

That is definitely a possibility. If a parent is inherently that overbearing, it will probably never end. Parents should NOT try to live their life vicariously through their kids.

I just had this long conversation with one of my friends who is trying to force their daughter to go to college. She doesn't want to. She wants to go straight into the military. She is a straight A student and has never missed the Dean's List. But she should be allowed to be what she wants to be. I understand all of the Pros of an education first, but when I was in college I met so many students who didn't want to be there, and their grades suffered. Most ended up flunking out and wasting their parent's money.

To be forced or coerced into sports because your parents have dreams of the kid someday being worth millions is so common it is almost sickening. It has to be what the child wants. If the child is truly fine with it, then sure. My parents always told us, "We don't care what you decide to be. You can decide to sit on the beach and make mudpies all of your life as long as you get a proper education first so you can afford to buy the mud yourself." Or something like that. So, my parents were not immune to a bit of coaxing either. But there does exist a line that should not be crossed.

tlb wrote:Or a slave freed by the RMN will still be a slave all life long? Being a slave means that you have no freedom of action, not that your actions are limited by what your body can accomplish. Ordinarily disease or old age will limit a body more than genetic engineering, because a slave that requires more care and treatment than a normal human being is unlikely to be preferred over a normal human being.

It is a very complicated discussion. In the HV, slaves are easily identifiable with distinctive markings. Human nature can be emotionally affected by what they were created to do, or by something they have been told all of their life that that is what they are and will always be. (I am speaking of cases where kids here on Earth are told, "You will never amount to anything!") I refer you to Paulo d'Arezzo. That poor soul carries a lot of emotional and psychological baggage.

Slaves freed by the RMN are free, but will they be afforded all of the opportunities of a normal citizen galaxy wide? Would it be safe to say that they could immediately leave Torch and succeed?

tlb wrote:Beowulf called the indentured servants "slaves" to indicate their displeasure, however it is only when Mesa starting called them slaves that their status was truly changed. Before then Mesa had to act on that difference, after that they could do as they pleased.

This passage needs clarification. Are you saying there was a point in time the slaves could do what they pleased?

Jeremy X might have had the easiest job of any slave. He wasn't happy, because I maintained that the MA can condition the body, but there is only so much they can do with the mind. Or it becomes mind control. Human nature doesn't like being told what to do. Being "created to do" is far too unacceptable.

tlb wrote:Beowulf called the indentured servants "slaves" to indicate their displeasure, however it is only when Mesa starting called them slaves that their status was truly changed. Before then Mesa had to act on that difference, after that they could do as they pleased.

cthia wrote:This passage needs clarification. Are you saying there was a point in time the slaves could do what they pleased?

No, I am saying they only fully became slaves when Mesa said that they would never be free. Beowulf contended that the indentured status was equivalent to slavery, the same as you do; however Mesa was forced to pay lip service to that eventual freedom as long as they were called indentured. Once Mesa ended that status then the full weight of that condition could be brought to bear.

cthia wrote:Jeremy X might have had the easiest job of any slave. He wasn't happy, because I maintained that the MA can condition the body, but there is only so much they can do with the mind. Or it becomes mind control. Human nature doesn't like being told what to do. Being "created to do" is far too unacceptable.

He is also the perfect example of someone who became all that he could be, despite having been a slave.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:Beowulf called the indentured servants "slaves" to indicate their displeasure, however it is only when Mesa starting called them slaves that their status was truly changed. Before then Mesa had to act on that difference, after that they could do as they pleased.

cthia wrote:This passage needs clarification. Are you saying there was a point in time the slaves could do what they pleased?

No, I am saying they only fully became slaves when Mesa said that they would never be free. Beowulf contended that the indentured status was equivalent to slavery, the same as you do; however Mesa was forced to pay lip service to that eventual freedom as long as they were called indentured. Once Mesa ended that status then the full weight of that condition could be brought to bear.

Ah, I see. With such a short lifespan, how could they have ever been set free? They had a lifespan of what, fifty years? From adolescence to adulthood is 18 years? That would leave only seven years as a mature indentured servant if they were to be given half of their life free?

I must be in serious error about their lifespan.

At any rate, I wonder if in reality they were always treated as slaves as in expendable, as slaves are, for the most part.

Was that first batch of millions of engineered people used as lab rats and guinea pigs for the next level of experimentation?

The true demarcation between slavery and freedom is the word "property."

cthia wrote:If someone is born the traditional way by two parents cuddling and smoking a cigarette afterwards, and the child grows up and decides to become an indentured servant, then that is different. Any other means is just plain old slavery. No bones about it.

And here's a major difference. If an adult, of sane mind and without reservations, entered into an agreement to have a genetic modification done to their body so they could excel at a given work, but in the process contracted a high debt that needed to be paid, it would be acceptable. Someone emigrating to a high-gravity planet could get genetic therapy to grown stronger bones and muscles, while someone emigrating to a thin-atmosphere world would want more powerful lungs and oxygen transport in their circulatory system; someone willing to work on high-radiation could get a stronger immune system; someone wanting to go into the courtesan business could get therapy to become more alluring or other sexual characteristics, etc.

Not all of those make sense as indentured servant, though. For example, the high-risk work should probably be instead a high-reward job, one you can basically earn 30 years' worth of income in 2, so you can enjoy the next 28 as you'd please. I don't see why anyone would contract a debt to work in a high-risk environment only to come out of it with break-even.

And in HV, we actually have this: it's biosculpting. I don't know how deep the changes can go though. Given the Beowulf Code, it's probably not a genetic modification.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Jeremy X might have had the easiest job of any slave. He wasn't happy, because I maintained that the MA can condition the body, but there is only so much they can do with the mind. Or it becomes mind control. Human nature doesn't like being told what to do. Being "created to do" is far too unacceptable.

He is also the perfect example of someone who became all that he could be, despite having been a slave.

Can we say that without being presumptuous? Certainly he rose above his predicament, but would he have become even more and done even greater things?

How much time was left on his clock after he escaped? He doesn't have prolong either, does he?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:If someone is born the traditional way by two parents cuddling and smoking a cigarette afterwards, and the child grows up and decides to become an indentured servant, then that is different. Any other means is just plain old slavery. No bones about it.

And here's a major difference. If an adult, of sane mind and without reservations, entered into an agreement to have a genetic modification done to their body so they could excel at a given work, but in the process contracted a high debt that needed to be paid, it would be acceptable. Someone emigrating to a high-gravity planet could get genetic therapy to grown stronger bones and muscles, while someone emigrating to a thin-atmosphere world would want more powerful lungs and oxygen transport in their circulatory system; someone willing to work on high-radiation could get a stronger immune system; someone wanting to go into the courtesan business could get therapy to become more alluring or other sexual characteristics, etc.

Not all of those make sense as indentured servant, though. For example, the high-risk work should probably be instead a high-reward job, one you can basically earn 30 years' worth of income in 2, so you can enjoy the next 28 as you'd please. I don't see why anyone would contract a debt to work in a high-risk environment only to come out of it with break-even.

And in HV, we actually have this: it's biosculpting. I don't know how deep the changes can go though. Given the Beowulf Code, it's probably not a genetic modification.

I don't understand. How would that work? During the time period under discussion, all of the changes had to be selected before birth. As Allison promised Emily to ensure her unborn child would regenerate. Mesa didn't have the ability to make genetic alterations after birth. I don't think the Alignment is at that point yet either. After all, it is genetic. That is why they have to destroy the bad fruit by culling, not pruning, entire lines.

One cannot ask to be born with something before being born. And requesting that for an unborn child should still be considered as slavery.