adding page while taking in Anthony Goldbloom‘s ted on what jobs are for machines and what jobs are for people..

same time added:




and perhaps where i’ll focus most of this thinking: this labor page

because of interpretive labor in particular

to go with previous pages:


graeber job/less law

work ethic

earn a living

future of work

radical econ (d&c):

1:07 – D: best evidence for that – look at prisons… work is a reward.. because no one wants to do nothing..

et al…


bucky’s inspectors of inspectors… being too much.. taking away our time/energy/luxury/quiet/still/imagination

and the need for a mech simple enough … to fit in mind/rationale/practicality of interpretive labor….  which means we don’t have to continue compromising/misunderstanding/misconceiving.. smaller-size/intent issues because of larger-size/agenda issues.. we don’t have to spend our days incremental/partial/ing back out of broken feedback loop.. to us

for (blank)’s sake

rather than what we are now capable of eudaimoniative surplus.. for everyone.. has to be everyone or won’t work.. wwwness

more formal versions on same principles … always compromise all of us ness
has to reain… antifragile/stigmergic/rhizomatic/et-al

e: hosting life bits where the data we focus on is self-talk .. but within a completely diff/nother way to live..

huge swaths of people graeber





let’s do this first: free art\ists.. leisure/luxury ness toward the energy we crave/need.


on labour and property and math and men

Very good case made by @MeeraSabaratnamthis am. for decolonising the curriculum on @BBCr4today, but I wish she’d gone further: presenting, say, John Locke’s views on property or liberty without addressing the colonial context actually is just “bad history” .. 1/4

Locke’s (1690) ‘Second Treatise of Government,’ for instance, argued that many Indigenous Americans had no rights to their own land, because “property” was to be legally defined only in terms of “labour” invested in fixed plots of territory .. 2/4


David Wengrow (@davidwengrow) tweeted at 2:58 AM on Mon, Feb 18, 2019:
And “labour” was to be understood only in terms that could be readily quantified, as raw numbers of work hours (i.e. on the model wage labour, sold on the open market). Aboriginal peoples who questioned this were to be “destroyed” like “savage beasts,” according to Locke 3/4

math and men

David Wengrow (@davidwengrow) tweeted at 2:59 AM on Mon, Feb 18, 2019:
And this is another good reason why we should be circumspect about any approach to human history, that reduces the cultural achievements of all past societies to a single measure or scale of value 4/4

stop measuring