From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu Nov 23 2006 - 11:32:59 EST
> I would say that slaves are those subordinate organisms whose > labouring capacity is equivalent to that of the enslaving species. > This category is empirical and testable, those about subjects > and their free will seem much harder to test. Paul C: To begin with, elephants are a wild animal which has never *as a species* been domesticated. (NB: emphasis in previous sentence). Secondly, they were captured. This is unlike some domesticated animals like dogs and cats which *for the most part* came to associate with humans because it was mutually beneficial for the humans and these non-human species. Thirdly, their use (outside of the horrors called circuses and the prisons called zoos) was productive. Their special laboring capacity, especially before the advent of motor vehicles and steam power, etc. -- was their strength. Of course, whether elephants can be slaves depends on how one defines slavery. One could, for example *define* slavery in such a way that only humans are slaves and slaveowners. I think this is a mere formalism, though. Your 'thought experiment' with pre-humans seems germane. Here's another thought experiment: suppose the evolutionary process continues and another life form evolves from homo sapiens: can't we envision the possibility that the new species will enslave the old or vice versa? Who are slaves and who are the enslavers depends on concrete historical circumstances. Primitive communism and slavery are modes of production, I think, which are possible for other species. Feudalism and capitalism, I think, aren't ... for a variety of reasons. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST