Tag Archives: thinkingdigital

Friday Thinking Digital sessions in other places videos

Last day of Thinking Digital 2008, had a few of high profile speakers that were filmed numerous times. They’re also very interactive and engaged speakers so instead of trying to live blog it, I’ve decide to post just few videos. Their sessions were of course not the same, and there is a special magic being in an audience, but it does the trick if you want to learn the message. They also had luxury of a few more minutes of stage time together with interactive and very interesting Q/A sessions.


Aubrey de Grey: Why we age and how we can avoid it



Carl Honore: Slowing down in a world built for speed


Richard St. John: Secrets of success in 8 words, 3 minutes


Claire Nouvian – Managing global marine resources in a globalized world [Thinking digital session notes]

Bow River in Canmore #2

Image from Flickr

Globalization leads to international marketplaces and international trade. There’s a huge amount of fish trade around the world. The profit can be made higher, if you save the cost. In case of fishing, there is no manufacturing but it’s processing. Half of the fish today are processed in the other countries that were caught in.
The reality of fish trade today makes it basically impossible to count and know how much of them are there, and it’s very very difficult to manage your resource. You have a ship that’s going to catch it, transfer it to another ship, get it to a port, move around some more, process it, change the flags, ship it back, have a retailer ship it to the store. So it’s very hard to even know that the fish itself is really the same fish.

Half of the fish people are eating in UK is illegally caught.

There is a billion people in the world who depend on fish as their main protein source and can’t afford to buy it.

What’s the deep sea and what does it hold? It’s 99% of the plant. The largest habitat on the planet. Most animals that live on earth, have never seen the day life. There are loads and loads of animals that are new sciences. There is a new species discovered every 2 weeks.

Why should we care? What is the significance of these ugly gelatinous creatures? It’s a very utilitarian approach to the world, just asking this question. This approach is not a break of collapse and it doesn’t work.

We should care because all living things are connected. This system is called Earth and it’s incredible that all it works together. We’re playing wizards and it’s taking a high toll on the system.
Mass extinction is a really slow process. 98% of life can disappear in a process of life extinction. The biggest crisis of living is now, since we’re seeing 1000 times faster process and what’s going to disappear today it’s not going to have good condition to comeback later as in a more natural process. This is why Climate

Change is not the biggest right now. We first need to make sure there is something to save. These animals and habitats are going to be little oasis to comeback after the climate change problem is over in millions of years.

Fishing is a really big problem in general and it’s easy to damage environment. There is lots of numbers of fish, they trawling hard the place, but after 10 years there are no more fish.

Why is this happening?

Because it can. UNCLOS: no ban on bottom trawling, perfectly legal.
Because we’re encouraging it:
– From 1995 to 2005, about 30-34$ billion US$ subsidies to fishing sector.
– Oit subsidies 7-8 billion US$ each year. (Hence necessity to cut subsidies, role of WTO in the process).

Addressing this requires going back to history of overcapacity building up + common linear pattern

We’re actually managing to fish everything out. Even though the oceans are so big, we have so big technological power that we’re exhausting oceans. But it doesn’t work. Since 80% we’re seeing less catches.

We need to change the meme that there is enough fish. We need to take a step back, and change the old patterns and ideas.

From a common resource…
…To the tragedy of the Commons.
Expression “Tragedy of the commons” since essay published in Science in 1968 by Garett Hardin

Conclusions from global experience?

Globalization can have positive effect if accompanied by goo management schemes, I.e. Top-down bottom-approach: global governance guides for global resource, local implementation and translation.

Solutions on individual level

  • Eat local
  • Accept to the the “right” price. Cheap sea bass means farmed.
  • Eat less fish
  • Eat lower on the food chain
  • Ban all bluefin tuna consumption: as close to extinction as giant panda

Excerpt of Greg Dyke interviewed by Andy Allan [Thinking digital session notes]

Milwaukee Art Museum (interior with people)

Image from Flickr

> Hillary Clinton or Obama?


> Why?

Because it’s exciting, interesting, new and exciting. But Clinton is not that.

> So what does that mean regarding you? Are you also revolutionary or you just fancy him?

I’m not sure politician are leaders. Last year was good for HArding, because Bush took the position of “worse president”.

America as a country looks strange from outside, because we elected Bush twice. We live in times where american are unnerved and then Obama comes.

> Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?

Gordon Brown is at least honest. I know what he is, he’s a doer, whereas Tony Blair was just an actor.

> You loved him thou? You gave him 50 grand.

Yes, I did. I’ve been in a Labour party for many many years. We wanted to win, and he looked like the person who will win. And we discovered that that winning was not enough.

> Tony was a master of media, but Gordon failed in that. So you have to have a master of the media now?

Probably, probably.

Al Gore’s book about broadcasting where he talks about the fact that it’s a two-way way and it’s too powerful for politics now.

Most the traditional media is getting last important.

> More people voted in BB than in last election ..

Yes, but it’s a bit skewed. My kids voted for that lots of time.

But the fact that you need to get Sun on your side, it’s not that important anymore. Sun is selling one million less copies.

> You tried to buy ITV ..

Yes I did.

> And the price is right.

Right, we tried to buy it for 1.50 .. But the board refused, and now its 50p.


> Would you still like to buy ITV?

I think it still can be turned around, but the decline is very fast now.

> How fed up were you when your governors at the BBC did not support you over the Gilligang business?

Avoid them like a plague, because they were afraid.

> Information superhighway. Does it concern you as a trained journalist? It doesn’t necessarily reason to believe that it’s factual or truthful.

One, I’m not sure who pays for good journalism, and in our lifetimes it was by advertising and government and stuff, but I’m not sure who pays in the future.
And in terms of television, I’m also not sure who pays in the future.

They asked me what’s my definition of public service broadcasting, as opposed to american programming and we’ve managed to sustain it by giving large license fee’s to BBC. So what happens when we don’t have that anymore and commercial television gives everything to sport, as opposed to HBO who funds some incredible dramas.


> BBC should not use the license money to intervene in the commercial market..

It’s a complicated job. “Looks easy to me, someone gives me 3 million pounds and I get to spend it”.

> BBC is not involved in the commercial market .. Should it be PBS for Britain?

The commercial market has failed. ITV digital, one of the dire decisions to destroy the station and the brand.

Freeview worked because we had enough money and market. “More telly, less money”.

> Do you see BBC more involved in the commercial market? This seems unfair.

We were very careful what we do. We’ve gone to freeview because commercial market have failed. The digital world was left to Murdock and I’ve though he should dominate the digital world, and it doesn’t.

> So BBC is a player now in this market.

Yes, and it survived and it work.

> Vast majority can still receive 4 and half channel

Not true. 80% of people can receive multi-channel. Largely because of the freeview.

> Do you believe they have more choice?

You’re coming back to 67 channels and nothing on. The question is going to be, who pays for it. A lot of channels are just repeating other stuff. The question is, who can afford to produce original channel. ITV is producing twice as much, and they can’t afford it.


Sorry, the discussion is too lively for a good transcript. I’ll update with podcast link when it’s available.

Ian Neild – Disruptive evangelist, BT Futurist

Janela Andaluz

Image from Flickr

Fingers and thumbs, the new generation is using this. The continuos evolution, the technology is not here for everybody, but we’re evolving in a way.

New world: scarcity of resources, new technologies, new opportunities and it all brings disruptive technologies.

The world is speeding up, and the time is the enemy. In old days it meant doing business with USA, days and now it takes milliseconds. Blackberries and other technologies are allowing us to work everywhere. It’s not 24/7 anymore but it’s a 60/60.

The knowledge cycle means that the knowledge is deeper, and highly specialized to much information for one brain. So how do we use technology to keep on top of it? On top of that, experts will not talk to other experts (marketers will not talk to researchers).

The opportunities are thus bridging the gaps. Networks and social sites enable non-geographic communities. It allows for collaborating and joining. But while this is great for good work, but it allows for crazy people and extremists to also work together.

Where are the new customers? Over the next 8 years, people are not dying off, immigrants are coming off. There is all of the sudden a lot more older people, so the world is going to change.

Inclusivedesigntoolkit.com is a page where you can put in an age group, disability and it will tell you how many people are you excluding from your product. The FedEx commercial was seen by more people on video sharing sites than on TV.

Internet paradise – we can reach out and touch the world. But what happens when the world reaches out?

Futuristic stuff:

  • Instant feedback on stuff
  • Cheap flexible displays are coming
  • 3D printers that we can print objects with
  • Interfaces have changed, but it’s really improving
  • Wiifit
  • Micro projectors
  • Mixing real and unreal
  • Imaging
  • Digital nail printer
  • Duality – we can start brining computer graphics into our world
  • Ongoing convergence – nano, bio information, etc.

Disruption comes to every market. We just don’t see it coming. It could home from anywhere.

Who survives? Not the strongest, not the most intelligent but the most responsive to change. – Charles Darwin

Caspar Berry – Risk Taking and Decision Making, Professional Poker player [Thinking digital session notes]

free spirit

Free spirit @ Flickr

Risk taking is a concept in embracing uncertantly in our lives. The times we’re most happy is the time we’re taking most of the risks.

Warning: risk taking can be fun. “Remember, boating is fun – until death occurs”. So please be careful.

Happiness – getting up every morning and have to do what you wanted to do. He got his first show Byker Grove, Beverly hills 90120 set in Newcastle.

The makeup lady says: “It’s the easiest thing in the world to do what you wanted to do. But the hardest thing to know what you want to do.”

So he goes on how he created movies, goes very nice and decides to become professional Poker player.

A lot of people are making a living from playing poker. When you are playing poker, you are not playing against the House”. The person with the best decision is going to take the money in the long run.

But after 3 years, he decided to move on. He started to figure out how to embrace uncertainty in everyday life. This way helping to maximize what we want to have maximized.

There is a science of risk taking. Does the coin toss and probability to enhance, but it is the point that is luck. What is happiness according to Las Vegas – it’s luck.

In order to embrace uncertainty, we have to embrace short term loss in order to make success in the long run. Examples: Michael Jordan, Abraham Lincoln as failures who succeeded in the end.

Human beings want what we can not or do not have. Sometimes this is a good thing as it motivates us to achieve the great technological advices. It also explains why the grass is always greener on the other side.

Lesson learned

The biggest decision he made was – “to be happy”. After that decision was made, he got it all.

Books mentioned:

Robert Cialdini – Influence, Science and Practice