Something I’ve been thinking about a lot in the current battle over the future of (pseudo) AI is the cotton gin.

I live in a country where industrial progress is always considered a positive. It’s such a fundamental concept to the American exceptionalism claim that we are taught never to question it, let alone realize that it’s propaganda.

One such myth, taught early in grade school, is the story of Eli Whitney and the cotton gin. Here was a classic example of a labor-saving device that made millions of lives better. No more overworked people hand cleaning the cotton (slaves, though that was only mentioned much later, if at all). Better clothes and bedding for the world. Capitalism at its best.

But that’s only half the story of this great industrial time saver. Where did those cotton cleaners go? And what was the impact of speeding up the process?

Now that the cleaning bottleneck was gone, the focus was on picking cotton as fast as possible. Those cotton cleaners likely, and millions of other slaves definitely, were sent to the fields to pick cotton. There was an unprecedented explosion in the slave trade. Industrial time management and optimization methods were applied to human beings using elaborate rule-based systems written up in books. How hard to punish to get optimal productivity. How long their lifespans needed to be to get the lost production per dollar. Those techniques, practiced on the backs and lives of slaves, became the basis of how to run the industrial mills in the North. They are the ancestors of the techniques that your manager uses now to improve productivity.

Millions of people were sold into slavery and worked to death *because* of the cotton gin. The advance it provided did not, in fact save labor overall. Nor did it make life better overall. It made a very small set of people much much richer; especially the investors around the world who funded the banks who funded the slave purchases. It made a larger set of consumers more comfortable at the cost of the lives of those poorer. Over a hundred years later this model is still the basis for our society.

Modern “AI” is a cotton gin. It makes a lot of painstaking things much easier and available to everyone. Writing, reading, drawing, summarizing, reviewing medical cases, hiring, firing, tracking productivity, driving, identifying people in a lineup…they all can now be done automatically. Put aside whether it’s actually capable of doing any of those things *well*; the investors don’t care if their products are good, they only care if they can make more money off of them. So long as they work enough to sell, the errors, and the human cost of those errors, are irrelevant. And like the cotton gin, AI has other side effects. When those jobs are gone, are the new jobs better? Or are we all working that much harder, with even more negative consequences to our life if we fall off the treadmill? One more fear to keep us “productive”.

The Luddites learned this lesson the hard way, and history demonizes them for it; because history isn’t written by the losers.

They’ve wrapped “AI” with a shiny ribbon to make it fun and appealing to the masses. How could something so fun to play with be dangerous? But like the story we are told about the cotton gin, the true costs are hidden.

#ML #TESCREAL

@nazgul So explosion in slave trade was "likely" caused by invention that reduced number of workers needed to clean cotton? Seems illogical to me. Do you have any data to back this up?

@older The “likely” was for cleaners moving to picking; that’s just a guess. The explosion of slavery it caused though is well-documented. Despite which, I literally didn’t know this until a few months ago when I took a class called Roots Deeper than Whiteness.

See the section “Effects of the Cotton Gin” here: https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent
Also here: https://historyincharts.com/the-impact-of-the-cotton-gin-on-slavery/

Eli Whitney's Patent for the Cotton Gin

As Eli Whitney left New England and headed South in 1792, he had no idea that he would patent a machine that would profoundly alter the course of American history. While in the South, Whitney quickly learned that Southern plantation owners were eager for a way to make cotton growing profitable. Whitney knew that if he could invent such a machine, he could apply to the federal government for a patent. Read more... Primary Sources Links go to DocsTeach, the online tool for teaching with documents from the National Archives.

National Archives
@nazgul @older It makes sense to me. It is a pipeline. You removed a bottleneck making that part more efficient so it means you can generate more cotton. Eg you managed to scale your operation. Horrible that it means that white colonialists went out and captured more slaves as part of that expansion
@sri Are you sure is was only white colonists who captured more slaves? I don't know much about American history but I recall reading that slave ownership was widespread among native Americans who became planters.
@nazgul
@older @nazgul who created the slave distribution network ? How did those slaves get to Europe and America ? Who facilitated the market of slavery? The concept of taking slaves or indentured servitude is not new in human history and likely you will find examples of it in any culture. But white colonists scaled it as a business not as the spoils of a conflict between groups of humans.

@sri @older @nazgul

The original capture of people in Africa was done by local slave gangs, who herded the captives to ports on the west coast for purchase.

There were plenty of people with dirty hands on three continents.

@eestileib @sri @older “There were plenty of people with dirty hands on three continents.”

What is the point of this comment?

@sri

Mostly this.
To my knowledge, slavery was wide spread in Africa before the Europeans came. Even more common, than in Europe.
But the Europeans industrialised it and introduced grand scale (and worldwide) slave trade.

@older @nazgul

@xilebo
I saw estimates of slave trade scale from Africa to Muslim countries and it was more than 10 million slaves traded during almost 10 centuries. If this is not a grand scale I don't know what is.
@sri @nazgul

@older @xilebo @sri It’s hard to compete with industrialized slavery.

“Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.”

That’s 4X as many per century. And that doesn’t count those born into slavery. Or the invention of race based on skin color, one-drop, and the “born to a slave, always a slave” rules.

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

Only a tiny percentage of the 12.5 million Africans shipped to the New World landed in North America.

The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

@nazgul
The entire population of the world was probably 3-4 times bigger compared to when slave trade to Muslim countries started.

But that is a very interesting link though. In the end there's this: "And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage."

So if only 388 thousands were shipped directly to North America, where did the majority of slaves were shipped to? Brazil?

@xilebo @sri

@xilebo @older @nazgul My point is those things that happened in slavery were due to the 'spoils of war' so to speak. The slave trade was a business of supply and demand. That was setup by white colonizers - sure, the African tribes leveraged it for their own gain but that system was created wholly between europe and america. Slavery is not new - using slavery as a new business model is something else and more drastic than what happened in the ancient world.

@older @sri American slavery was very different than what went before. Not just in scale, but in how it’ll created the concept of race, how it maintained control, and how it was used to control the lower classes. There’s plenty of literature on it. Here’s an example. https://youtu.be/riVAuC0dnP4?si=qulyr7Fu0dtAcKCn

But this is a distraction. Pointing at other people being bad doesn’t make us any better. Nor does it teach us how to solve our problems.

Birth of a White Nation

YouTube

@nazgul @older I mean, Hitler looked at all the things the U.S. did and modeled it.

Great response.