Fossil fuel or modern slavery ?

06/12/2011 8:48 am

Slavery is often approached with a similar outlook, based on the underlying positivist assumption that modern civilisation is morally superior to the barbaric slave-owning societies of the past. Yet, before jumping too quickly to this conclusion, we should pause for a moment and reflect on the similarities in our current attitudes towards fossil fuels and climate change and the behaviour of slave owners. This article aims to do just this in two parts. First it examines the role of the IndustrialRevolution in eradicating slavery and in triggering our large-scale burning of coal and, later, oil and gas. Second, it suggests that, even though today’s societies look very diff erent from slave societies, by replacing the institution of slavery and the social structures that supported it with a new set of structures built on fossil fuels, modern societies have, in many ways, become similar to their problematic predecessors (this phenomenon is not limited to Western societies). For instance, since we now know the consequences of climate change in some parts of the world, we have to acknowledge that carbon dioxide emissions produce affliction, certainly not in a direct way like slavery, but nonetheless a very real affliction for those who suffer from it. There are also many similarities between the way in which fossil fuels are used today and the way in which slave labour was used in the past. So evident is this correlation that it is now fairly common for authors to refer to “energy slaves” to designate the services provided to us by machines: in the 1990s the average global citizen “deployed about 20 ‘energy slaves’ meaning 20 human equivalents working24 hours a day, 365 days a year”, recently wrote McNeill (2000: 15). Hence, the second section argues that we now behave much like slaveholders.

This claim certainly will appear outrageous to many. However, the purpose of this article is not to blame or alienate any specific individuals or groups of people. Quite the contrary: at a time when society is searching for culprits responsible for the environmental troubles lying ahead of us, I argue that we have arrived at the present situation (mostly) in good faith, with the conviction that modernity would bring the masses freedom from toil, and without any chance of knowing the climatic consequences of our burning of fossil fuels. By placing matters in context, history enables us to move away from over-simplistic moral judgment and offers a better understanding of the motives of those who introduced fossil-fuel powered engines— and, unwittingly, left us trapped in a new form of dependency. True, this article also establishes similarities between our society’s behaviour and slave owning societies of past centuries, and therefore does morally condemn our behaviour. Yet it does so by emphasizing the near universality of the institution of slavery or neo-slavery in human societies, and thus blames ‘human nature’ as a whole for the problem. Thisdoes not diminish our moral responsibility, but at least it should prevent us from transforming too easily ‘others’ into scapegoats, another universal human tendency

Historians point to a variety of causes for the rise and maturation of the anti-slavery movement. The reasons advanced range from religious radicalism, the consequences of the American Revolution, the rise of various philanthropic movements and the spread of the Enlightenment, to economic reasons including the birth of modern capitalism, slave revolts or free labour ideology; and all these reasons undoubtedly played a role.

Links with the Industrial Revolution have also long been proposed. Davis specifically suggests that machines changed the perception of labour in Britain and led to a desire to dignify it. Until the end of the early modern world, labour had mostly been seen as a curse. Yet, at the time of the agricultural revolution (itself facilitated by industrialisation), bread was more easily and abundantly available. Simultaneously, thanks again to some extent to the introduction of steam and water power, labour in factories became less physically demanding (Smil 1995). These effects, combined with the powerful image of awe and progress steam conveyed, can explain why the image of labour changed. “It was not until writers in the
Enlightenment and early nineteenth century began to ennoble free labour (...) that it became possible to launch a popular attack on slavery as a backward and inhuman institution that stigmatized and dishonoured the very essence of labour” (Davis 2006: 56; 286). While coerced labour was still widely accepted or even promoted in Britain in the eighteenth century, owners of capital and manufactures became increasingly convinced that giving wages to labourers offered many advantages. These labourers could indeed become consumers of manufactured products and hence contribute to the overall economic growth. This explains why anti-slavery became such a popular cause in the United Kingdom, a cause that could unite industrialists and working class people into signing the same petitions.

(...)

Thus, one enabling or contributing condition for the abolition of slavery was the growing feeling that unpleasant work would increasingly be done by machines. Therefore, with the help of all the other moral, religious and ideological arguments which were making slavery progressively morally abhorrent, industrialising nations increasingly thought they could do without slaves. The advent of available non-slave power was not a sufficient condition to trigger the end of slavery, but its absence had prevented its demise to some degree. The first beneficiaries of steam power could not afford to consider the virtue of doing without human slavery until after these non- muscle sources of energy had become adequately available. Once the energy was available, the general public became enabled to think in this new, less exploitative manner. This could help explain the often noted puzzle of why there had been no large scale abolitionist movement before the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

What is well established is the fact that the industrial and technological advance created a diff use feeling of human progress. Even before machines had started to effectively supersede the work done by slaves, it was widely thought that technology would help mankind free itself from many old constraints (even though it also generated many new concerns amongst the public).

(...)

3 New similarities in slave ownership and fossil fuel usage

In order to minimise the risk of the reappearance of slavery on a large scale (a possible consequence of an energy shortage caused by our relentless consumption) or the danger of unbridled climate change (also caused by our extravagant burning of fossil fuels), perhaps we do not need technological fixes or ‘superhero’ politicians but a change in general attitudes. After all, the overwhelming majority of industrialised countries are democracies and elected representatives are supposed to do what their name implies, i.e. represent their citizens. A general change in attitude will only happen if people are convinced, emotionally as well as intellectually, that our relentless use of fossil fuels has become dangerous and morally wrong. This section will attempt to do exactly that.

We have seen above that, since Aristotle, people have anticipated that automated engines could replace human labour and slaves. The idea, far from fading away, is currently making a powerful comeback, at the very time when western societies are contemplating a possible end of this era. Suddenly, the services given by machines, which had been for a time taken for granted, become visible again. There are nowadays an ever growing number of people who argue, again, that modern technology is now replicating the services once provided, in rich families, by slaves and servants.

Fossil fuel-powered machines and slaves play(ed) similar economic and social roles in the societies in which they operate(d). Both slave societies and developed countries externalise(d) labour. In the first case, labour came from slaves; in the other, ‘work’ is provided by machines. Consequently, there are many similarities between our dependence on fossil fuels and slave societies’ dependence on bonded labour. In addition both slaves and modern machines free(d) their owners from daily chores. They gave and continue to give individuals the leisure to read and write, perform arts, get informed and participate in politics. If we all wanted to benefit from our current lifestyle without any fossil fuels, we would need to employ several dozen people working full time for us. The human exploitation and suffering resulting (directly) from slavery and (indirectly) from the excessive burning of fossil fuels are now morally comparable, even though they operate in a diff erent way. We now knowthat when we burn oil or gas above what the ecosystem can absorb or when we are depleting non renewable resources for leisure, we are indirectly causing suffering to other human beings, today and in the future. Similarly, cheap fossil fuels facilitate imports of goods produced in countries with little or no social protection and hence help externalise labour and perpetuate slave-like conditions.

3.2 Machines and slaves play(ed) similar economic and social roles

In a recent article, Marc Davidson, drawing on two earlier comparisons (Orr 2000 and Azar 2007) convincingly argued that there are similarities “between the rationalisation of slavery in the abolition debates and the rationalisation of ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases in the US congressional debates on the Kyoto Protocol”. For example, Davidson argues that “in both debates US congressmen and Southern congressmen, respectively, represent an electorate with substantial interests in maintaining the status quo, costs are shifted to people who are not part of the electorate, and Congress rejects proposals for change” (Davidson 2008: 67– 68).Yet it is possible to go much further and find even deeper connections.
My comparison starts with an hypothesis that it is a feature of human nature that whenever societies have had the opportunity to find someone or something else to work for them for free, or for a small cost, they have almost always taken advantage of it, whatever the moral cost. The way this operates, irrespective of gender, class,religion or ethnicity, is amply demonstrated by the fact that there were a number of slaveholders, in the American South or elsewhere, who had themselves been slaves.

If slavery reminds us of “our [slaves and slave-owners alike] shared humanity, not only our triumphal possibilities but also our profound limitation” (Davis 2006:180), the same could be said of fossil fuel usage. Both slave owners and inhabitants of developed countries relied, and still rely, on work generated from an external source of energy to enjoy their particular lifestyle. In the former case, labour came from slaves; in the latter, it is derived from ‘work’— in the sense physicists use the word—which is mostly provided by energy from fossil
fuels. As Davidson puts it: “today the United States is as dependent on fossil fuels for its patterns of consumption and production as its South was on slavery in the mid-nineteenth century”.

Of course, Davidson’s comparison cannot be measured exactly. Quantifying the value in today’s money of all slaves in the Southern States in a meaningful way is extremely diff icult, as it is to determine the value of fossil fuels in today’s world. Moreover, the dependence on fuels cannot be accounted for by quantitative economic analysis alone (Debeir et al. 1991: 124). Even though it is impossible to make a robust, like-for-like comparison, as forms of energy, there are clear similarities between our current economic dependence on fossil fuels and the nineteenth century economy’s dependence on slaves. The United States and, to a large extent, the rest of the world, are far more reliant on fossil fuels today than the US economy—or any other economy—has ever been on slavery. Several scholars have long claimed that this dependency jeopardises our very survival: “proper alternative sources of energy that can substitute for fossil fuels must be found to prevent mankind from reverting to an agricultural level of activity which would mean a dramatic and painful reduction of both mankind’s size and its level of living” (Cipolla 1978: 63; many comparable claims are made in the literature on ‘peak oil’).

(...)

Another way of evaluating current dependencies on ‘virtual slaves’ is to consider how much people-effort would be required to replace work done by machines. At the end of the nineteenth century, for example, human labour still accounted for about 95% of all industrial work in the US—and this was generally true of all traditional societies—whereas, today, it constitutes only 8% (Berry et al. 1993). A century ago, Oscar Wilde considered the steam engine to be the functional equivalent of servants or slaves. However, the term ‘energy slave’ (and subsequent efforts to quantify the average number of such slaves per person in the world), seems to have first been coined by American philosopher R.B. Fuller in the early 1950s. His estimate was that in 1950, each individual on earth had approximately 38 “energy slaves” at his disposal (Fuller 1969; Marks 1964). This concept has since been used widely: I have found over twenty references to “energy slaves” in publications, although these are sometimes phrased slightly diff erently, for example as “mechanical slaves”.

The implication is clear; if we wanted to maintain the same lifestyle without petroleum, coal, natural gas, we would need to employ several dozen persons, or more, on a full-time basis (The exact number of ‘virtual slaves’ depends not only on the period and the country considered, but also whether one takes the average amount of mechanical work a healthy human could do in a year (as Fuller does) or the average amount ‘energy slaves’ working 24 h a day, 365 days could do in a year (as McNeill does)). This astoundingly high figure comes from the fact that a single litre of petrol contains the equivalent of about 9 kWh of energy, while the output of an average human being is about 3 kWh in the course of a 40-h working week. Even if human labour involves more than just an output of kWh, it is reasonable to suggest that we pay little for our oil when compared to the amount of ‘work’ fossil fuel canprovide. It is no wonder that people in past centuries enthusiastically adopted new energies, or that the majority of us want to continue to enjoy the numerous positive aspects of fuel-powered machines.

3.3 Both fossil fuel usage and slavery cause(d) harm to others

Besides the similarities between the convenience brought to us by fossil fuel powered machines and the convenient life slaves brought to slave owners, another parallel exists between the harm caused to human beings by slavery and the harm caused by the current large scale burning of fossil fuels. I do not want to imply that all fossil fuel burning is bad. A useful distinction can be made between ‘luxury emissions’ and ‘survival emissions’. “One unit of carbon dioxide emitted by an Indian peasant farmer, essential for subsistence, carrie[s] a diff erent moral weight to a unit of carbon dioxide emitted by an American tourist flying to the Bahamas” (Hulme 2009: 159; Agarwal and Narain 1991).

Some might argue that it is not possible to compare pain triggered by the use of slaves and pain caused by the use of oil, gas or coal, as in the latter case we are dealing with inanimate objects that cannot suffer. However, when we burn oil or gas above what the eco-system can absorb, we are indirectly causing suffering to other human beings. The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make it clear that the release of carbon dioxide is already causing harm by increasing droughts and flooding, threatening crop yields and displacing large
numbers of people, and this damage and suffering is set to rise in years to come.

The future looks grim for the world, whether the IPCC looks at freshwater resources and their management, ecosystems, food or health. The predictions for Africa, the continent where the slave trade involved more people and lasted longer than in any other place in the world, are even more worrisome: “By 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people [in Africa] are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change. (...). Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by
climate variability and change” (IPCC 2007).

If we accept the conclusion of the IPCC, we must recognize that we are now fully aware of both the causes of climate change and its consequences. It is no longer possible to argue that our use of oil is morally neutral. Driving cars or flying does—however indirectly and unwittingly—hurt people now. And because emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, they will increasingly continue to do so in the future, unless the trends reverse, somehow.
For those who are still unpersuaded that climate change is hurting people, or do not believe that the climate is being significantly altered by human activity, there is still the moral, as well as practical, problem that by using fossil fuels, we are depletingvery valuable resources that are not renewable. Scholars like Jared Diamond (2006) have vividly told cautionary tales of societies disappearing because they relied on a staple source of food or energy that they subsequently exhausted. Britain had oil in the North Sea, much of which is now gone forever. The nation has used a resource that its children will not be able to benefit from. Because the oil and gas have been burnt in large part for ‘luxury emissions’ rather than ‘survival emissions’ and with little concern beyond the ‘carpe diem’ mantra, it has not replaced it by anything of similar value. The next generation will inherit the worst consequences of this cheap energy lifestyle (if we leave aside anthropogenic climate change, we could add pollution, obesity, the spread of concrete over arable land and greenbelt, and the consequent development of highly unsustainable suburbia, to the litany).

Did you enjoy this piece of news ?