> Complete subservience and complete intelligence do not go together.

Isn't this contradicted by the centuries of slavery in our history? Or is the author arguing that the people who were enslaved did not have human-level intelligence (which would be rather a problematic claim)?

Is that complete subservience ? Slave history has tended towards slaves no longer being slaves over long enough time horizons, and not simply because the slave masters were just feeling extra nice. Slaves don't really like being slaves.

Neither, the author is pointing out the desire of the enslaver, not the actual outcome. But I don't think their logic takes into account access to means to 'outsmart' the enslaver. It's trying to frame it as a single instance equation, not a societal one to try and show the underlying contradiction of desire.

At least, that's what I'm pulling from the quote, have not read the full context.