Unproductive Interpretation of Work and Employment as Misinformation?
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 1 Sep 2025
Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service
Unfruitful Interaction between Economic, Ecological and Psychosocial Perspectives
Introduction
Faced with polycrisis and forms of governance which are proving “unfit for purpose”, there is a case for a more radical assessment of what “work”, “employment” and “productivity” mean for those affected by those framings in their daily lives. There is great danger that reforms variously envisaged will tinker with conventional articulations — avoiding questions of relevance to the lived reality of many. Especially problematic is the potential inability of such tinkering to engage with ecological perspectives on the extent to which non-human species (and nature more generally) are engaged in gainful employment — forms of “work” and “productivity” on which humans are ultimately dependent, however much that is problematically denied.
This exploration is triggered by a gathering to enhance productivity convened in Australia by the Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmes (Economic Reform Roundtable – A stronger, fairer and more productive economy, Prime Minister of Australia, 18 August 2025). Coincidentally a more general question has been asked by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in articulating the quest for a new global order in the form of “New Bretton Woods” (Matthew Hamilton, Reform or Realignment? The Geopolitical Lessons of Bretton Woods, 13 August 2025). It is questionable whether the perspectives presented address the experiential realities of people exposed to issues which are systematically ignored by such initiatives.
In this exercise use was made of a number of AIs to glean insights systematically from the world’s resources on the multifaceted nature of the challenge. This included commentary on the arguments made for Bretton Woods reform. The AIs primarily employed for this purpose are Perplexity and DeepSeek — supplemented in the concluding argument by ChatGPT and Claude. In this experimental exploration the responses of AI have been framed as grayed areas — with that form of presentation itself treated as an experiment, in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents and debate. Clearly the questions can be asked of other AIs — and framed otherwise — whether at the present time or in the future when more sophisticated large language models become available.
It might well be asked, for example, to what extent either the Australian roundtable or the Carnegie study sought to enhance their initiatives with insights gleaned from AI — otherwise recognized as both a primary tool for future increases in productivity and a challenge to conventional assumptions regarding “work”, “employment” and “productivity”.
There are many references to aspects of the arguments highlighted here and th AIs offer facilities to list them in relation to the questions asked. Particular aspects have been explored separately — notably escaping economic disempowerment through enabling metaphors and software (12 Mindsets Ensuring Disappearance of Employment Opportunities, 2012; In Quest of a Job vs Engendering Employment, 2009; Sustainable Occupation beyond the “Economic” Rationale, 1998; Re-enchantment of Work: engagement in the 21st Century, 1996; Evaluating the Grossness of Gross Domestic Product, 2016).
TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.