An Evolutionary Argument for Slavery

I think it is interesting how you will not hear someone arguing a pro-slavery position nowadays, even though it has only been a little over one hundred years since slavery has been abolished. This post comes from an exchange with a prior psychology professor (a black female) about race and slavery.

My argument is for slavery from an evolutionary point of view. In other words, if humans are believed to have evolved from apes, I think it is arguable that slavery is an allowable, logical deduction. This is obviously not what I believe (either that humans came from apes, or that slavery is a good thing), but it is an interesting thought exercise.

The thought goes like this:

1. Evolution states that various species came into being from random or selected mutations over long periods of time.
   
2. It states that these changes are positive in that “survival of the fittest” is ensured through the changes.
   
3. It also states that these subsequent species came into being precisely because they were better in one way or another, regardless of how you categorize that: faster, smarter, stronger, smaller, more venom, more protection, more egg-laying capacity, ability to breathe in both air and water, ability to fly, etc.
   
4. These statements give rise to a flow of thought related to species hierarchy: a human is better than an ape, which is better than a weasel, which is better than a frog, which is better than an amoeba. This flow can be stated in reverse order, like this:
   

amoeba —> frog —> weasel —> ape —> human

So far, so good. Pretty generic stuff. We will quickly admit that an amoeba does not have the same rights, value or position as a human.

Following a great many articles and vast research, including, most interestingly, genomics, scientists have concluded that the first humans were located in Africa and subsequently spread from there in several waves. The first wave was into Egypt, the second was into various regions of Africa. The third was into the Middle East, India, Australia (the Aboriginal tribes), and Asia. The final wave, they say, was into the European nations, which would make caucasoids the latest “race” to evolve, while Africans would be the earliest.

With this in mind, the entire flow could be stated like this:

amoeba —> frog —> weasel —> ape —>

human {African —> Egyptian —>

Middle Eastern/Indian/Aboriginal/Asian —>

Caucasian}

If we can readily admit that an amoeba does not have the same rights, value and position as an ape, and that an ape does not have the same rights, value and position as a human, it should not be difficult to think that later iterations of humans are therefore higher in the hierarchy of human evolution.

And if we admit that, then it is a short leap to say, therefore, that certain humans, based on the evolutionary scale, are more progressed . . . better, in other words, according to evolutionary assertion #3 above.

Let’s talk about slavery for a minute. A slave, in short, is a person who is held in non-compensated servitude by another. By definition, the slave, is “less than” the owner in at least one way (position), but is usually considered “less than” in many ways. We may treat the family pet as if they were dear to our heart, but we would not grant them the same position, value or rights as a child within the family structure. The animal is still property and may be treated as such. And if it came to a choice between the pet or the child, it shouldn’t be difficult to agree which should be saved. Property can be replaced, but people can’t.

As far as slavery goes, they were considered property. They had no recognized value, rights or position because they were less than. I can’t imagine the average person saying that a Black person is “less than” today, but it almost seems that this is what some of the sciences are insinuating if we follow their line of thinking through to the end.

I think a serious evolutionist should look at this argument. Glibly saying that all humans, regardless of ethnic ancestry, have equal and inherent value is a serious misappropriation of evolution’s main tenets. Evolution clearly shows that one is better, and the other worse. So if you think slavery is wrong or bad, you can’t expect evolution to help prove that. Why? Well, because evolution will always highlight progress in successive iterations, not equality from the earliest to the most recent. The most recent is the most fit, the earliest is the least fit.

On the other hand, if evolution is taken to be true, then there is no grounds to say that slavery is wrong or bad. Slavery would be, at the very least, logically allowable. If evolution is true, it is no worse for the better and more recent iterations of humans to rule over the earlier “less than” iterations, than it is for an owner to rule over a dog. I think that if evolution is true, this could be one logical deduction.

I hope your emotions are pricked by the thought that evolution provides logical and (most notably) scientific grounds for slavery. And I hope you are repulsed by this thought. If not, then I fear we have learned nothing from history, but instead have accepted something sinister without greater scrutiny. More on that later.