Going undercover as a sex worker

> Human trafficking is, essentially, modern slavery.

Almost all "human trafficking" is willing migrants paying someone to help them cross a border (into US, EU, etc).

You're trying to be reasonable and logical, which is good. But I think you err in looking to animals to define what is natural behavior for humans. Doing that collapses the enormous gulf which lies between animals and humans. And it also generalizes across all humans.

Instead, I think it's better to consider what is "natural" for certain societies and cultures. For example, most people in average, relatively prosperous Western countries (and many Eastern ones) would not "naturally" treat another human being the way the "clients" in the article do. A few sociopaths, but that's a very small percentage of the population.

Why? I think it's pretty simple: it's how people are raised. Children who are raised by loving parents, taught to treat others well, disciplined when they don't, grow up to be adults who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. But a child who is raised by abusive parents, who witnesses the parents treating others like animals, may grow up and emulate that behavior. If they are taught that it's acceptable to treat other humans like animals and property, then that is what they will do.

Nature vs. nurture is a bit of a false dichotomy. No one grows up in a vacuum. People are shaped by family, society, culture. People tend to emulate what they see. Getting people to change their behavior and values by reasoning with them is very difficult, and impossible with some people.

This is an element that seems sorely lacking in the article: there's no mention of cultural and societal values. She mentions corruption in police and judicial systems, and she calls for unilateral, cross-border action--which would effectively be going to war. She doesn't recognize that you can't fix those problems by going to war, because war doesn't rewrite societal values. (On the other hand, one might point to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and post-WWII as counter-examples, but I think that is a bit different: it was a world war, and the nations were occupied for many years afterwards, and a government had arose which lead the people in evil ways. The cultures weren't necessarily innately evil in their values.)

The reason human trafficking flourishes in these places and police and judicial corruption allow it to continue is that the societal values are corrupt. There's an element of oppressive governments not accurately reflecting the values of the people as well, but still, the government isn't forcing these atrocities to occur.

And to bring it back to where we started: by defining "natural" by what seems natural to animals, you perpetuate the problem. Animals have no concept of right and wrong. Human trafficking and slavery are wrong because they are wrong, because they are evil. You might say that that's circular reasoning, but if we agree on that basic morality, regardless of where it comes from, then it stands.

And therefore, the reason these other places continue to allow it is because of defective moral values in a large percentage of the population.

That isn't a popular thing to say, because it's "judgmental." Well, yes, I do judge that that behavior is abhorrent, and that the people engaging in it and permitting it are acting abhorrently.

And if you want to argue that it's not a result of defective cultural values, you'll have to do better than an "animal nature"-based argument, because that would logically erase cultural differences. And, no, a few outliers in cultures that largely don't have the same problem do not wash away the distinctions. Some cultures do have better moral values than others. (If you disagree with this, you're a moral relativist, and there's no basis for discussing it.)

Global citizenship requires global government which comes with its own set of problems. What if the majority favored a certain behavior, such as this one? Then it would be globally legal. Maybe it's not globally favored now--that doesn't mean it will always be this way.

Compartmentalization is better than globalization. Humans are fallible and often evil. That is not going to change. The best thing to do is compartmentalize people and government to prevent cancerous evil from affecting everyone.

Anything else is wishful thinking. History shows that evil's not going anywhere, and contemporary events do as well.

You are being deceptive. Islam explicitly commands its followers to deceive others.

Compare the Islamic State to Jews. Compare the Islamic State to blacks. There is no such comparison. This "scapegoat" victim card is a lie. Jews are not decapitating and immolating. Blacks are not decapitating and immolating. Yet Muslims from around the world are leaving their homes to join the Islamic State in their unspeakable evil, behaviors that might very generously be described as "backward."

Islam explicitly paints an us-vs.-them picture. Islam explicitly commands its followers to kidnap, rape, enslave, and kill unbelievers. These are simple facts, the truth.

Let's have a simple quiz:

There is a certain group of people in a certain part of the world today that are kidnapping, raping, enslaving, decapitating, immolating, and otherwise mutilating and murdering innocent people. They are attracting followers from around the world.

Question: this group is universally comprised of members of which religion?

Question: this group has explicitly declared the rest of the world to be its enemy, and declared its intention to destroy those who oppose it. True or false?

Scenario:

Group A: "We're going to kill you all!"

Group B: "Group A intends to kill us all!"

Group C: "Group B is spouting fear-mongering bullshit."

Question: Which group is lying?