> slavery has a negative impact on both slaves and slaveholders.
What's the negative as a slaveholder again?
What's the negative as a slaveholder again?
The (Nietzschean?) counterargument here is that slave-labour enables division of labour and frees enough from non-specialised labour (e.g. individuals being responsible for all of producing food, building dwellings, providing security, raising children, caring for the elderly etc, and thus not being particularly good at any of them) to allow the emergence of a 'caste' of full-time scientists, engineers. Such a 'caste', such division of labour is required to drive technological progress to a level where slavery becomes unnecessary.
My historically uninformed and naive suggestion would be that ancient Greece was an example of the latter while most other societies with substantial slavery (such as South America and Africa) were examples of the former.
Aside: Any serious discussion of slavery must begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery", for the term is used in wildly different ways.
In any other case the slave owner would have a benefit over the non slave owner when it came to cost of production.
As long as you keep it up I'll pretend I want to keep working.
Most human labour has historically related to food production, production and maintainance of dwellings, sanitation, health, care of the young & elderly, and security (from animals, natural forces, other humans). Since division of labour became possible additional forms of labour emerged, such as science, engineering, and organisation of labour whose raison d'être is to lighten humanity's workload. One can and should certainly ask if work could be organised better, but there is a base load of things that need to be done to perpetuate humanity.
What will replace it culturally when we don't have any work?
Moreover there is probably quite a bit of rationalisation going on: since I can't avoid work I might as well pretend I like it, for that makes life more bearable. More importantly, there is a virtue-signalling aspect to finding work enobling: since human emotions are contagious and human behaviour involves a lot of mimesis (= copying others), my public display of taking pleasure in my own work increases the probability that others find their work enobling, which in turn increases the amount/quality of their work, and that leads a better / more productive society which in turn is in my own selfish interest.
Aside: Max Weber uses a somewhat similar (but more elaborate) argument when he seeks to explain the emergence of modern society out of the protestant spirit. The issue of whether we do good because doing good is intrinsically good or because we crave the social recognition of good works, has been discussed since antiquity, see for example Plato's Republic.
What will replace it culturally
when we don't have any work?
If you are lucky enough to be paid to "do what you love" is it work or is it a hobby for which you are paid?
I am quite certain ai will take over most jobs.
Costly, yes. But do those costs out-weigh the immediate benefits of slave ownership? Probably not.
I have a hard time thinking slave-owners were hurt by slavery; they made out like bandits, but their gains don't counter all the harm done to those enslaved.
Businesses run on slave labor just could not compete with those run with free labor.
(For example, it was illegal in the slave states to teach slaves to read, and any slave who could read would do well to conceal the skill. The southerners were fearful of an educated slave, because that made them more dangerous. But an illiterate slave was also less useful as a worker.)
Ancient Sparta had to militarize all their free men in order to keep their slaves in check.