Pan-Optic Podcast

Episode 9 is part two of our exploration of Aaron Benanav’s critique of the so-called “automation discourse.” We further probe the hypothesis that system overcapacity caused the collapse of manufacturing labor demand. What happens to the job market when manufacturing labor is down and the cost of living is up, chronically? Which possible economic solutions do we have in our toolbox to affect meaningful, productive workforces? In an attempt to answer these questions, we weigh the costs and benefits of a universal basic income (UBI) versus a green new deal. And in conclusion, we reexamine the effects and potentials of technology and automaton through a new lens. Recommend listening to Episodes 7 and 8 first.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Episode 8 is part one of our exploration of Aaron Benanav’s critique of the so-called “automation discourse.” But first, let’s recap: in Episode 7, Jason broke down local political discourses on automation and offshoring. Why does Andrew Yang believe that automation killed 4,000,000 manufacturing jobs in rural America? Why does Elizabeth Warren believe that offshoring has been far more destructive than automation? To answer these questions, we conducted a lit review of recent academia on the economic effects of technology; identified potentially problematic data collection techniques; and compared competing interpretations of GDP and unemployment trends. But today, Juan Pablo throws “a monkey wrench into the works” by introducing Benanav’s concept of “system overcapacity.” Is it possible that the local political discourses on automation and offshoring are missing the point? How might global excess supply contribute to waning labor demand? From Benanav’s perspective, neither automation nor offshoring is the root cause of unemployment; rather, both automation and offshoring are market responses to waning labor demand. Join us for part one of our discussion. Part two will post in a few weeks.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Welcome to Pan-Optic’s third “Reflections” episode featuring our most reactionary, stream of consciousness rambling yet. Jason and Juan Pablo relate current, salient political headlines to core Pan-Optic themes and previous episodes. In chronological order, we: brainstorm private sector and non-profit applications of critical theory, and debate the limitations of the “business case”; react to the Democratic Presidential Primary debates; and discuss the American politics of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, and climate change / industrial policy in the context of the Australian fires. Full disclosure: this was supposed to be a short episode… On that front, we failed miserably! Nevertheless, we covered a lot of ground in two hours. More importantly, we had a lot of fun. Whether you agree or disagree with our perspectives, Pan-Optic welcomes your participation. Engage with us on Twitter, Instagram, or through the chat box on our website: www.panopticpod.com. We’re delighted to address any dissenting views on future episodes.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

To kickoff the New Year, Pan-Optic returns to the subject of automation. In today’s episode, Jason and Juan Pablo uncover dominant political discourses surrounding the fall of U.S. manufacturing labor. Why did 22% of American manufacturing plants shutdown between 2000 and 2014? What happened to the victims of mass job displacement? In the context of the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primaries, there are at least two relevant discourses: the fall of American manufacturing labor was caused by (1) the offshoring of production to countries with cheap labor or (2) the rise of advanced automations. How might potential voters assess these discourses? They may consider: difficulties associated with interpreting labor statistics; competing definitions of automation; the uses and applications of labor reducing technologies in the U.S. and throughout the world. In preparation for this episode, Jason and Juan Pablo read Automation and the Future of Work by Aaron Benavav, social sciences professor at the University of Chicago. Benavav offers an alternative critical perspective on the fall of U.S. manufacturing labor: what if neither offshoring nor automation is the cause of mass job displacement, but rather, both offshoring and automation are symptomatic of an increasingly stagnant, global economy that seeks indefinite growth? Are candidates like Elizabeth Warren (proponent of the offshoring discourse) and Andrew Yang (proponent of the automation discourse) somehow missing the point?

We invite Pan-Optic listeners to revisit Episode 3, which describes philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s dystopian vision of a future defined by hyper-dependency on artificial intelligence. The contents of this episode are perhaps also dystopian, but in a different way. Listen to Jason and Juan Pablo debate the economics of automation, which may or may not threaten to transform the nature of labor forever. Along the way, we promise to strengthen your political toolkit to make informed voting decisions and influence your less politically savvy peers at cocktail parties.

*This episode is part one of a three-part series focusing on labor demand. The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Happy Holidays Pan-Optic listeners! Welcome to our second "Reflections" episode and first ever Holiday Special. The purpose of today’s episode is to conduct a “pulse-check” of the podcast. We reflect on the following questions: What is Pan-Optic about? Have we evolved on this question over the last 6 months? Who is our target audience and what do we want our listeners to takeaway from our discussions? Also, who are we -- our backgrounds, interests, and aspirations? And finally, what are some topics that we hope to cover in 2020? Along the way, we respond to some criticism from Reddit; we talk about religion and what the holidays mean to us; and we riff on David Fincher’s Mindhunter, radicalization, the mercenary firm Blackwater, high performing ESG stocks, and much more. We’ve grown faster than we anticipated since launching in August 2019. Help us sustain this growth and make Pan-Optic the most energizing, interdisciplinary podcast by submitting your ideas and feedback through the chat box on www.panopticpod.com. We look forward to hearing from you in the New Year. Otherwise, grab a drink, relax, and enjoy the show!

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

Today’s episode is part three of a three-part series on strategic communication. But unlike part two, today’s episode is through and through philosophy. We come full circle with Habermas who argues that strategic action is purposive, calculated manipulation of others. While communication itself is oriented towards increasing understanding, strategic action seeks to undermine communicative norms, to produce effects by increasing misunderstanding. And this is bad for democracy, claims Habermas.

But is it fair to require such a narrow definition of strategic action? Aren’t there purposes and calculations behind every action — even communicative actions? Jason presents practical, relational scenarios attempting to bring Habermas down to every day life. Meanwhile, Juan Pablo defends Habermas’ critique of strategic action.

Is the exercise of strategy to affect relationships ever morally desirable or permissible? Tune into the debate and let us know where you land.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

This is the second episode of a three-part series focusing on strategic communication. In today’s episode, we wrap up our conversation on the Socratic Method as a kind of strategic action in disguise; we discuss the value of intra- and interpersonal audits to unveil hidden interests prior to engaging in negotiation, debate, or conflict; and we compare strategic communicative techniques - namely, Harvard Business School’s “principled negotiation” (Getting to Yes) versus Chris Voss’ psychological trickery (Never Split the Difference). Through all this, Jason argues that strategic communication is tied to a selfish substrate. In other words, we cannot not do it. But we can refine our strategic communicative skills to build stronger, more collaborative relationships that generate mutual value. Juan Pablo cross examines Jason’s argument and observes that strategic communication requires some level of deception that is ultimately anti-democratic. Alternatively, shouldn’t we aim to create more understanding, not less, through communication? Today’s episode offers a healthy combination of critical analyses and practical insights applied to situations that you frequently encounter in the workplace and everyday life. Stay tuned for part three, where Juan Pablo presents the full Habermasian critique of strategic communication, culminating in our most heated debate yet. We recommend listening to each part in chronological order.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

This is the first in a three-part series focusing on strategic communication: what is it, how does it work, what are its strengths and limitations, is it morally defensible, and is it even avoidable? In today’s episode, we examine the Socratic Method in practice: a rambunctious debate on the nature of justice between Socrates and Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. In theory, the Socratic Method is an open, transparent dialectical process of uncovering truth. But in practice, the method trespasses into the territory of strategy. Did Socrates’ commitment belong to the truth, or to winning at Thrasymachus’ expense? What can leaders in the modern world learn from this hilarious exchange? What are some real life situations in which a Socratic strategy pays dividends? Jason and Juan Pablo discuss, laying the groundwork for our most heated debate yet. We recommend listening to each part in chronological order.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

Reflections #1. This is the first in a series of more reactionary, topical conversations that Juan Pablo and Jason are doing as part of the development of the Pan-Optic podcast. Today, we discuss popular criticism of writer/director Todd Phillips' Joker, the so-called "comic book genre" in general, the role of the markets in directing resources to particular types of cinema (while alienating others), and filmmaker/philosopher Alexander Kluge's perspective on cinema as a public sphere medium with political effects.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx

In this episode, we briefly trace the history of automation, consider some of the more salient consequences of modern technology, and review philosopher Bernard Stiegler's dystopic critique of modern technology. What happens when we exteriorize knowledge into automatons? Bad, bad things, says Stiegler. But is all the pessimism justified? Juan Pablo and Jason debate.

The views expressed on this podcast are our own.

If you enjoy what you're hearing, please follow/support us through any of the below media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Panopticpod

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/panopticpod

Website: https://www.panopticpod.com/

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pan-optic-podcast/id1475726450

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0edBN0huV1GkMFxSXErZIx