What I meant is that we can not do and have no position in dicussing the problems of a world we don't have access to.
Yes, I meant that to our past history too. We can not change how it happened anymore.
Modern life has abolished slavery as a common thought and knowledge. But the practice of it isn't going out because of exploitation in work.
However, the modern life can be affected by our actions and we can choose to abolish slavery as well as exploitative nature of work places.
I still quite firmly disagree, especially on the matters of the past. The past informs our present and how we treat people in current systems built with previous ideas. It also helps us understand who benefits from those past systems, why they benefited from them, and why some people in the present may want to replicate or restore certain systems, regardless (or perhaps because) of how it will affect those around them.
Discussing them, in prior and modern contexts, allows us to form our own opinions and acknowledge the opinions of the past. I also think modern life hasn't really abolished slavery, considering the examples I gave. It's common enough that I think a general person may know what a for-profit prison is, and it's common enough that billions of dollars are produced by the practice each year. But I digress—it's not the main topic we're focused on, and I don't really feel like arguing that point further, nor do I feel this is the place for it.
As far as the story goes, I think acknowledging how we know and think of slavery brings up interesting questions of how it may work in these fictional worlds. We wouldn't be having this conversation if we ignored it as how it is. Like, why is it like that? What benefits do people get from it? What sort of safety do they think this system provides, and so on. It's a big part of successful world-building, I feel, to produce a story that causes readers to evaluate these ideas, whether slavery, the economics of the world, or otherwise. It helps it feel more real instead of something convenient or cookie-cutter.
For example, when I replied to the same person you replied to, I mentioned the fact there's certain tax benefits. We learned in previous chapters that, though you do pay more taxes than if you were paying for yourself, you pay fewer taxes for a slave than a free person. So then, for example, would a person struggling to feed their family decide to enslave some of the members but keep them in their home? Is that a viable option for reducing familial taxes? Would they be able to ask a wealthy person they know to buy their enslaved family and leave them in the household?
Or, are there protections against using the tax system in that manner? Are there requirements for something a slave must do to prevent losses?
Sherry's situation is also very thoughtful—with the practice being common enough and her understanding the risks, but still going into slavery to provide more for her family because she wasn't in the right conditions to have her actual knowledge and skills shine the brightest. Moreover, Roxanne and Sherry brought up that slaves can even have negotiation power to an extent, able to ask other masters to buy them if they feel they're being mistreated.
This is what I mean by considering our modern ideas, the fictional world's ideas, and where the logic stands in these cases.
Excuse me for talking a lot, lol. It's a big topic. Regardless, this has been a good conversation!