Tech, Innovation & Society - The Creative Process: Technology, AI, Software, Future, Economy, Science, Engineering & Robotics Interviews

 "So there are different parts of the brain responsible for liking and wanting. So wanting is unbelievably robust in the brain. In other words, the neural connections are very robust, and wanting is what drives most addictive behavior. It's when you really want something, like you want a cigarette, you want alcohol, a drug, whatever it is, that's your poison. And actually, screens for some people as well. The liking part. When you say to people, what does it mean to be addicted to something? A lot of people say it's, 'You really like it so much that you just keep going back to it.'It's actually not about liking. What actually happens is that, in the beginning, liking and wanting go together. So let's pick something like a cigarette. If you start smoking in the beginning, you like the experience of smoking, and you also really want the nicotine. You want the cigarette. They go hand in hand, but eventually what happens is the liking is much more fragile, and it decays. And what's left is the wanting. And often in the absence of liking, it's kind of like a bad relationship. Like if you're in a bad romantic relationship, it starts out being about wanting and liking, but then the liking goes away, and you just kind of want to be with a person, even though you know it's undermining your welfare. That's effectively addiction. The real skill today is figuring out how to create space between you and your tech devices."Adam Alter is a Professor of Marketing at NYU’s Stern School of Business and the Robert Stansky Teaching Excellence Faculty Fellow. Adam is the New York Times bestselling author of Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked, and Drunk Tank Pink, which investigates how hidden forces in the world around us shape our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. He has written for the New York Times, New Yorker, The Atlantic, Washington Post, and a host of TV, radio, and publications. His next book Anatomy of a Breakthrough will be published in 2023.https://adamalterauthor.com www.penguin.co.uk/books/431386/irresistible-by-adam-alter/9781784701659 www.simonandschuster.com/books/Anatomy-of-a-Breakthrough/Adam-Alter/9781982182960www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/adam-alterwww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

Adam Alter is a Professor of Marketing at NYU’s Stern School of Business and the Robert Stansky Teaching Excellence Faculty Fellow. Adam is the New York Times bestselling author of Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked, and Drunk Tank Pink, which investigates how hidden forces in the world around us shape our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. He has written for the New York Times, New Yorker, The Atlantic, Washington Post, and a host of TV, radio, and publications. His next book Anatomy of a Breakthrough will be published in 2023. "So there are different parts of the brain responsible for liking and wanting. So wanting is unbelievably robust in the brain. In other words, the neural connections are very robust, and wanting is what drives most addictive behavior. It's when you really want something, like you want a cigarette, you want alcohol, a drug, whatever it is, that's your poison. And actually, screens for some people as well. The liking part. When you say to people, what does it mean to be addicted to something? A lot of people say it's, 'You really like it so much that you just keep going back to it.'It's actually not about liking. What actually happens is that, in the beginning, liking and wanting go together. So let's pick something like a cigarette. If you start smoking in the beginning, you like the experience of smoking, and you also really want the nicotine. You want the cigarette. They go hand in hand, but eventually what happens is the liking is much more fragile, and it decays. And what's left is the wanting. And often in the absence of liking, it's kind of like a bad relationship. Like if you're in a bad romantic relationship, it starts out being about wanting and liking, but then the liking goes away, and you just kind of want to be with a person, even though you know it's undermining your welfare. That's effectively addiction. The real skill today is figuring out how to create space between you and your tech devices."https://adamalterauthor.com www.penguin.co.uk/books/431386/irresistible-by-adam-alter/9781784701659 www.simonandschuster.com/books/Anatomy-of-a-Breakthrough/Adam-Alter/9781982182960www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/adam-alterwww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

"So right now the world is fueled by the burning of oil, gas, and coal, and a lot of people are making a lot of money out of that. Whereas with things like renewable energy, you can put solar panels on your rooftop, and all of a sudden you're not paying anything in terms of an electricity price. If you happen to live in a sunny country like Australia, you end up getting your electricity for free from the sun, which is extraordinary, but actually renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity over 60% of the Earth's surface, which again is an amazing thing to think about. And yet we haven't tapped the full potential, less than a third of global energy is generated by things like solar and wind, and other renewable energy sources. So there's a really huge potential, but it is that moment where we can transition into a low-impact, sustainable future.So I see that as a really positive thing, but we're in this moment where we're transitioning from an old technology into a new technology. And if you stop and think about history, where we went from people who used to have a horse and cart, and then they went to automobiles. It's the same sort of thing. We're just advancing our technology. So it's inevitable that it's going to happen. It is happening right now."Dr. Joëlle Gergis is an award-winning climate scientist and writer at the Australian National University. She served as a lead author for the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and is the author of Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Sunburnt Country: The History and Future of Climate Change in Australia. Joëlle has also contributed chapters to The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg, and Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility, edited by Rebecca Solnit and Thelma Young Lutunatabua.http://joellegergis.comhttps://climatehistory.com.auwww.blackincbooks.com.au/authors/jo-lle-gergiswww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

Dr. Joëlle Gergis is an award-winning climate scientist and writer at the Australian National University. She served as a lead author for the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and is the author of Humanity’s Moment: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Sunburnt Country: The History and Future of Climate Change in Australia. Joëlle has also contributed chapters to The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg, and Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility, edited by Rebecca Solnit and Thelma Young Lutunatabua."So right now the world is fueled by the burning of oil, gas, and coal, and a lot of people are making a lot of money out of that. Whereas with things like renewable energy, you can put solar panels on your rooftop, and all of a sudden you're not paying anything in terms of an electricity price. If you happen to live in a sunny country like Australia, you end up getting your electricity for free from the sun, which is extraordinary, but actually renewable energy is the cheapest form of electricity over 60% of the Earth's surface, which again is an amazing thing to think about. And yet we haven't tapped the full potential, less than a third of global energy is generated by things like solar and wind, and other renewable energy sources. So there's a really huge potential, but it is that moment where we can transition into a low-impact, sustainable future.So I see that as a really positive thing, but we're in this moment where we're transitioning from an old technology into a new technology. And if you stop and think about history, where we went from people who used to have a horse and cart, and then they went to automobiles. It's the same sort of thing. We're just advancing our technology. So it's inevitable that it's going to happen. It is happening right now."http://joellegergis.comhttps://climatehistory.com.auwww.blackincbooks.com.au/authors/jo-lle-gergiswww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.org IG www.instagram.com/creativeprocesspodcast

“So one of the main arguments in the book is that digital technology is important to how organizations campaign, and it's not a matter of campaigning online or offline, right? Often people hear the title of my book and they go, ‘Oh, it's all just slacktivism.’ You know, whatever you do online is slacktivism. Luckily the academic debates move past that because most advocacy groups operate both online and offline. What I argue instead is that digital technology has enabled groups to be rapid response, like you said, extremely member-driven so they can listen to their members and do something called analytic activism (that's a term coined by David Karpf) and be multi-issue generalists. The ways that works is much more than meets the eye. So when you're rapid response, that means a news story can come on one hour and two hours later a campaign can be started by the organizations. So it could be related to refugee issues. In 2015, when there was increasing concern about what was happening on Europe's borders with refugees and asylum seekers, some of these groups that had no expertise in refugee rights switched very rapidly when they saw public opinion changing."Nina Hall is an Assistant Professor in International Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (Europe). She previously worked as a Lecturer at the Hertie School of Governance, where she published her first book Displacement, Development, and Climate Change: International Organizations Moving Beyond their Mandates? Her latest book is Transnational Advocacy in the Digital Era: Think Global, Act Local. She holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford and is the co-founder of an independent and progressive think tank, New Zealand Alternative. She has been a Senior Fellow at the Weizenbaum Institute (the German Internet Institute) and a Faculty Affiliate at the SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University.https://ninahall.net https://global.oup.com/academic/product/transnational-advocacy-in-the-digital-era-9780198858744?cc=fr&lang=en& https://sais.jhu.edu/users/nhall20 www.oneplanetpodcast.org www.creativeprocess.info Instagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Nina Hall is an Assistant Professor in International Relations at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (Europe). She previously worked as a Lecturer at the Hertie School of Governance, where she published her first book Displacement, Development, and Climate Change: International Organizations Moving Beyond their Mandates? Her latest book is Transnational Advocacy in the Digital Era: Think Global, Act Local. She holds a DPhil in International Relations from the University of Oxford and is the co-founder of an independent and progressive think tank, New Zealand Alternative. She has been a Senior Fellow at the Weizenbaum Institute (the German Internet Institute) and a Faculty Affiliate at the SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University.“So one of the main arguments in the book is that digital technology is important to how organizations campaign, and it's not a matter of campaigning online or offline, right? Often people hear the title of my book and they go, ‘Oh, it's all just slacktivism.’ You know, whatever you do online is slacktivism. Luckily the academic debates move past that because most advocacy groups operate both online and offline. What I argue instead is that digital technology has enabled groups to be rapid response, like you said, extremely member-driven so they can listen to their members and do something called analytic activism (that's a term coined by David Karpf) and be multi-issue generalists. The ways that works is much more than meets the eye. So when you're rapid response, that means a news story can come on one hour and two hours later a campaign can be started by the organizations. So it could be related to refugee issues. In 2015, when there was increasing concern about what was happening on Europe's borders with refugees and asylum seekers, some of these groups that had no expertise in refugee rights switched very rapidly when they saw public opinion changing."https://ninahall.net https://global.oup.com/academic/product/transnational-advocacy-in-the-digital-era-9780198858744?cc=fr&lang=en& https://sais.jhu.edu/users/nhall20 www.oneplanetpodcast.org www.creativeprocess.info Instagram @creativeprocesspodcast

“So, as much as I would love to take the credit, Google Ads was a big team, and I was fortunate to be brought in as a director that managed the team. And I would also like to say the idea of attaching ads to searches, anybody could have had it. In fact, it was the most obvious thing. Just like on television, if you watch a car race, then it makes sense to have ads about cars. So I think the reason it was so successful is because innovations and new ideas, they compound. They build one upon the other. So the reason why ads was so successful for Google is because search was so successful for Google. So when you have search and you have billions of people coming in every day, maybe every hour, and searching all kinds of things, you have this treasure trove of data. And more importantly, guess what? If you have billion searches per day, you know how many experiments can you run? Countless, right? And so Google is very famous for doing a lot of A/B experiments. That's how we collect the data. You think, if we make the ads, let's say short and long, they will be more effective than if we make them, tall and long.Well, how do we know which one will work better? You can do a lot of experiments. So what actually enabled Google to be so successful and to grow is this mental attitude, which by the way, is the same one that Amazon and some of these really successful technology companies have, of doing a lot of experiments on small samples and continually refining their data based on that.If you're dealing with a lot of people, you can do those experiments and that's why these companies are successful. The sad thing or what happens with companies that do not operate in that way, that do not try to operate on data and do all of those experiments, those are the ones that are left behind. Innovation is experimentation."Alberto Savoia was Google’s first engineering director and is currently Innovation Agitator Emeritus, where, among other things, he led the development and launch of the original Google AdWords. He is the author of The Right It: Why So Many Ideas Fail and How to Make Sure Yours Succeed, a book that provides critical advice for rethinking how we launch a new idea, product, or business, and gives insights to help successfully beat the law of market failure: that most new products will fail, even if competently executed.He is a successful serial entrepreneur, angel-investor and an expert practitioner in pretotyping and lean innovation. He is based in Silicon Valley where he teaches his uniquely effective approach to innovation at Google, Stanford. He has also taught and coached many Fortune 500 companies, including Nike, McDonald’s, and Walmart, as well as the US Army.www.albertosavoia.com https://harperone.com/9780062884671/the-right-itwww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Alberto Savoia was Google’s first engineering director and is currently Innovation Agitator Emeritus, where, among other things, he led the development and launch of the original Google AdWords. He is the author of The Right It: Why So Many Ideas Fail and How to Make Sure Yours Succeed, a book that provides critical advice for rethinking how we launch a new idea, product, or business, and gives insights to help successfully beat the law of market failure: that most new products will fail, even if competently executed.He is a successful serial entrepreneur, angel-investor and an expert practitioner in pretotyping and lean innovation. He is based in Silicon Valley where he teaches his uniquely effective approach to innovation at Google, Stanford. He has also taught and coached many Fortune 500 companies, including Nike, McDonald’s, and Walmart, as well as the US Army.“So, as much as I would love to take the credit, Google Ads was a big team, and I was fortunate to be brought in as a director that managed the team. And I would also like to say the idea of attaching ads to searches, anybody could have had it. In fact, it was the most obvious thing. Just like on television, if you watch a car race, then it makes sense to have ads about cars. So I think the reason it was so successful is because innovations and new ideas, they compound. They build one upon the other. So the reason why ads was so successful for Google is because search was so successful for Google. So when you have search and you have billions of people coming in every day, maybe every hour, and searching all kinds of things, you have this treasure trove of data. And more importantly, guess what? If you have billion searches per day, you know how many experiments can you run? Countless, right? And so Google is very famous for doing a lot of A/B experiments. That's how we collect the data. You think, if we make the ads, let's say short and long, they will be more effective than if we make them, tall and long.Well, how do we know which one will work better? You can do a lot of experiments. So what actually enabled Google to be so successful and to grow is this mental attitude, which by the way, is the same one that Amazon and some of these really successful technology companies have, of doing a lot of experiments on small samples and continually refining their data based on that.If you're dealing with a lot of people, you can do those experiments and that's why these companies are successful. The sad thing or what happens with companies that do not operate in that way, that do not try to operate on data and do all of those experiments, those are the ones that are left behind. Innovation is experimentation."www.albertosavoia.com https://harperone.com/9780062884671/the-right-itwww.creativeprocess.info www.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

"So shooting for one planet just means you would be totally dominant, and leave no space for other species. Ecologists say to maintain 85% of preindustrial biodiversity, it would take about at least half the planet left on its own. That would mean getting to half-planet. And now we use at least 1.75. I say at least because our assessments with about 15,000 data points per country in a year are based on UN statistics, and their demand side is probably an underestimate because not all demands are included. And also on the supply side or the regeneration side, the UN is very production oriented, so it's the FAO numbers, for example, look at agricultural production, and the depletion side or the destruction side is not factored in adequately.So that's why it's an underestimate. And still, it shows we use about 1.75 Earths, and that's more than three times half an Earth. So that's kind of the difference. But we also know overshoot will end one way or another. The question is do we choose to end it? Do we choose it by design, or do we let nature take the lead and end overshoot by disaster? So it's really ending overshoot by design or disaster. That's the big choice we need to make.”Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis’ awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures.www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast

Mathis Wackernagel is Co-founder and President of Global Footprint Network. He created the Ecological Footprint with Professor William Rees at the University of British Columbia as part of his Ph.D. in community and regional planning. Mathis also earned a mechanical engineering degree from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Mathis has worked on sustainability with governments, corporations and international NGOs on six continents and has lectured at more than 100 universities. Mathis has authored and contributed to more than 100 peer-reviewed papers, numerous articles, reports and various books on sustainability that focus on embracing resource limits and developing metrics for sustainability. Mathis’ awards include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, being a 2014 ISSP Sustainability Hall of Fame Inductee, the 2013 Prix Nature Swisscanto, 2012 Blue Planet Prize, 2012 Binding Prize for Nature Conservation, the 2012 Kenneth E. Boulding Memorial Award of the International Society for Ecological Economics, the 2011 Zayed International Prize for the Environment (jointly awarded with UNEP). He was also selected as number 19 on the en(rich) list identifying the 100 top inspirational individuals whose contributions enrich paths to sustainable futures."So shooting for one planet just means you would be totally dominant, and leave no space for other species. Ecologists say to maintain 85% of preindustrial biodiversity, it would take about at least half the planet left on its own. That would mean getting to half-planet. And now we use at least 1.75. I say at least because our assessments with about 15,000 data points per country in a year are based on UN statistics, and their demand side is probably an underestimate because not all demands are included. And also on the supply side or the regeneration side, the UN is very production oriented, so it's the FAO numbers, for example, look at agricultural production, and the depletion side or the destruction side is not factored in adequately.So that's why it's an underestimate. And still, it shows we use about 1.75 Earths, and that's more than three times half an Earth. So that's kind of the difference. But we also know overshoot will end one way or another. The question is do we choose to end it? Do we choose it by design, or do we let nature take the lead and end overshoot by disaster? So it's really ending overshoot by design or disaster. That's the big choice we need to make.”www.footprintnetwork.orgwww.footprintnetwork.org/toolswww.overshootday.org/power-of-possibility/www.creativeprocess.infowww.oneplanetpodcast.orgInstagram @creativeprocesspodcast