Ludi wrote:Slaves were owned by the very wealthy, and used to maintain the very wealthy in the style to which they were accustomed. Slaves were not used by the average farmer, even in the South.
That's right. And slavery was a racially more complicated subject that the politically correct version that is taught to teens in high school. Most antebellum White farmers, as you said, did not own slaves. Blacks were among the owners as well as among the slaves. The largest slave-owner in South Carolina, for a while, was a Negro. Some Injuns also owned slaves. Not all of the slaves were Blacks - in fact, there were about as many White slaves as Black slaves between the founding of Jamestown and the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Ludi wrote:Just to add, though I do not see slavery as an economic necessity, neither do I expect post-peak-oil to be easy. The world needn't be "harsh, repressive, and Darwinian." It's more likely to be so the more people see such a future as acceptable and inevitable. Just sayin'. But I'm well-known here as a hopelessly naive dreamer and optimist.
The world in the 22nd century is likely to be fairly Darwinian. But the middle half of the 21st century will probably be very, very Darwinian. That's when the dieoff will be going at the briskest clip, the first derivative of the global population as negative as it will ever be. People will want strong leadership and will rally around anyone who seems to be a strong leader, regardless of his motives and morals. There will be several decades in which ham-fisted, loudmouthed bullies will reign supreme, though outside their window of opportunity such as they have been, and will be, generally despised.