<p>I am reading the book Capitalism and Slavery: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery</a></p>
<p>The author argues that, in a historical context, working a plantation with slaves, in comparison to hired labor, resulted in a faster degradation of soil quality. The reason for this, according to the author, is the lower work motivation of slaves compared to hired labor.</p>
<p>What concrete actions or omissions of slaves or hired workers could lead to this effect? What could be a connection between labor quality and soil quality? Any suggestions are welcome, thanks</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-13T14:21:46.433Z
Could you quote the relevant section/passage?
thosphor
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-14T07:16:43.997Z
It might be a question of how intensively the land was worked under each scenario. Did one scenario have a rotating plot of land that was left fallow for a year, so it could recover? Were other forms of land care or land abuse used? Was a question of greed by the one group & not the other that lead to such practices, if they occurred?
Fred
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-15T06:48:01.283Z
@thosphor. It's a few pages, so I tried to distill the argument here
Carsten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-15T08:43:20.967Z
@Carsten Does the author of this publication propose *any* mechanism, even if merely speculative, conjectured, or hypothetical, by which "lower work motivation of slaves compared to hired labor ... resulted in a faster degradation of soil quality"? What indicators of soil quality are being considered, and how are they being assessed?  I am only familiar with one particular method of assessment, the German *[Bodenwertzahl](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodenwertzahl)*.
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-15T14:07:00.263Z
@njuffa: The author was quite vague on the mechanisms. My hypothesis would be that there are certain actions that can be done to improve soil quality (e.g. plowing would come to my mind). If those tasks are done in a bad quality, this would have a negative effect on soil quality. But I'm really not an expert here...
Carsten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T00:25:16.807Z
sounds like an unsupported assertion, does the author offer an justification?
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T02:41:31.950Z
@John I think that's the point of asking the question here; the OP likely feels the same way, and is curious to find if the assertion can be supported.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T03:48:20.823Z
slavery ended but the same people continued working on farms doeing the same  type of work as before,this removes a large part of the before vs after slavery soil quality part of the question.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T09:18:47.207Z
@trondhansen: The argument is certainly not about the characteristics of the people, it is rather about how they are incentivised. Slaves have little to win from high quality work. As hired laber however, you can benefit from high quality work through bonuses or higher wages
Carsten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T20:28:13.393Z
@uhoh if the author posits it with justification it can be dismissed with no justification.
John
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-16T23:11:32.733Z
@John that's certainly an option that any given reader might choose, yes.
uhoh
<soil>
Slavery and soil quality
Carsten
# Slavery and soil quality

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-13)

I am reading the book Capitalism and Slavery: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Slavery>

The author argues that, in a historical context, working a plantation with slaves, in comparison to hired labor, resulted in a faster degradation of soil quality. The reason for this, according to the author, is the lower work motivation of slaves compared to hired labor.

What concrete actions or omissions of slaves or hired workers could lead to this effect? What could be a connection between labor quality and soil quality? Any suggestions are welcome, thanks

**Tags:** soil

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could you quote the relevant section/passage?  
> **username_2**: It might be a question of how intensively the land was worked under each scenario. Did one scenario have a rotating plot of land that was left fallow for a year, so it could recover? Were other forms of land care or land abuse used? Was a question of greed by the one group & not the other that lead to such practices, if they occurred?  
> **username_0**: @username_1. It's a few pages, so I tried to distill the argument here  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Does the author of this publication propose *any* mechanism, even if merely speculative, conjectured, or hypothetical, by which "lower work motivation of slaves compared to hired labor ... resulted in a faster degradation of soil quality"? What indicators of soil quality are being considered, and how are they being assessed?  I am only familiar with one particular method of assessment, the German *[Bodenwertzahl](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodenwertzahl)*.  
> **username_0**: @username_3: The author was quite vague on the mechanisms. My hypothesis would be that there are certain actions that can be done to improve soil quality (e.g. plowing would come to my mind). If those tasks are done in a bad quality, this would have a negative effect on soil quality. But I'm really not an expert here...  
> **username_4**: sounds like an unsupported assertion, does the author offer an justification?  
> **username_5**: @username_4 I think that's the point of asking the question here; the OP likely feels the same way, and is curious to find if the assertion can be supported.  
> **username_6**: slavery ended but the same people continued working on farms doeing the same  type of work as before,this removes a large part of the before vs after slavery soil quality part of the question.  
> **username_0**: @username_6: The argument is certainly not about the characteristics of the people, it is rather about how they are incentivised. Slaves have little to win from high quality work. As hired laber however, you can benefit from high quality work through bonuses or higher wages  
> **username_4**: @username_5 if the author posits it with justification it can be dismissed with no justification.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 that's certainly an option that any given reader might choose, yes.  

---

## 0 answers

