In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis.
Browse content similar to 28/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
16 years after this 17-year-old
private died from gunshot
wounds at Deepcut barracks,
there's to be a fresh inquest
into what really happened.
It sometimes seems as though
the authorities want everyone
to move along and think
about something else -
his parents tell us
about why they never gave up
looking for answers.
I saw my son on a slab
and he's 17 years old.
I promised him then that
I would find out the truth.
I don't think we have
found the truth yet.
And I still owe him that promise.
We'll ask a leading human rights
lawyer whether parents should have
to fight so hard to get
the investigations they need?
Also tonight, you might
have known your phone
was addictive, but did you know
it is properly addictive...
and deliberately so.
It's part of my body now.
It is always with me.
I don't know.
I don't want to say
it is an addiction,
but I just need my phone!
It is not sensational
to say our brains are being hacked,
because that is pretty much
what is happening.
And Stella McCartney tells us why
the fashion industry needs
to be more sustainable.
This can be fashionable, this can be
sexy, this can be young.
We start tonight with
the speculation this evening
of a settlement in the fraught talks
over Britain's Brexit divorce bill.
We might have an answer
to the fifty billion euro question -
how much do we pay to leave.
And the answer seems to be a number
near to fifty billion euros.
The papers are full
of somewhat varying figures
as to what Britain is agreeing too -
but that's the order of magnitude.
Certainly, the general
pattern of these talks,
that we say no and then we say yes,
while they say very little appears
to have repeated itself again.
But our political editor Nick Watt
has been around Westminster finding
out how this is all going down,
and he's with me now.
Can we put a figure on it? We can
confirm that the UK has agreed to
the EU framework for settling that
financial divorce bill with EU when
we leave. Stage one came in the
Prime Minister's speech in Florence
when she said that the UK would
agree to cover it share of the EU
budget up to the end of 2020. The
final stage has come just now, which
is that the UK has agreed that it
will meet its liabilities racked up
as a member of the European Union.
Where you go from there is a matter
of dispute. The sources I have been
talking to say that they are not
putting a number on the table. The
Financial Times and the Daily
Telegraph which broke this story,
the Daily Telegraph is talking about
a figure of up to 55 billion euros
and the Financial Times is talking
about 100 million euros but think it
could be mass such down to half of
that. The UK Government do not want
the figure at the table at the next
summit. They never want a figure on
the table. What they want to be able
to do is offset that against our net
payment and pay these liabilities as
they are due in perhaps as long as
decades to come. They have an ally
in me shall buy. His view is that
methodology is more important than a
The papers are going on it.
Financial Times here. The Times.
There is the Daily Telegraph. The
Guardian. What does this tell us
about Theresa May and her whole
approach to these negotiations?
Theresa May once a dealer at the end
of this process. The idea is to have
it by October next year and then you
can finalise it in Parliament. She
feels very strongly that you have
got to move on to the second stage,
the final trade talks and the
transition talks. You have to do
that at the summit next month and to
do that you have got to come to some
sort of agreement in the next week.
There are some senior Remain Tories
who say that the Prime Minister is
talking a tough game. And then she
is quietly sort of doing this deal
in Brussels. I think what ministers
would say is we are making progress,
we made this big movement, but on
the money there will still be a line
by line and analysis and crucially,
they are not there yet on two big
issues. One is the role of the
European Court of Justice in the
future relationship with EU citizens
of this country and also the Irish
Theresa May has gone to the
Middle East. She will not be
answering questions about it
It will be Damian Green
standing in for the Prime Minister
at Prime Minister's Questions. There
is a report going on into whether he
behaved appropriately with a young
woman journalist who he had a drink
with an questions about alleged
pornography on his computer. The
interesting thing is, he is a
passionate Remainer who is
delivering Brexit bar when he was
asked about it and how he would vote
in another referendum, he said he
would vote to Remain.
It is only a small Surrey
village near Camberley,
but the name Deepcut has sadly
become synonymous with a series
of deaths at the Barracks there.
Four young trainees died by gunshot
wounds over a number of years
in the late '90s and early 2000s.
The strange but similar
circumstances made the families
deeply sceptical of initial
suggestions of death by suicide.
After perseverance by those
families, subsequent reviews exposed
a culture of bullying and harassment
at the barracks, and found fault
in the army's treatment of trainees.
Questions were raised about
the investigations into the deaths.
And today - one family successfully
won a high court action to obtain
a fresh inquest into the death
of their son.
Private Geoff Gray was only 17
when he died, 16 years ago.
Should it really have taken so long
for the relatives to get
His parents spoke to us today.
I saw my son on a slab
and he was 17 years old.
I promised him then I'd
find out the truth.
I don't think we've
found the truth yet.
And I still owe him that promise.
Private Geoff Gray died
in 2001 at the Deepcut
army barracks in Surrey.
He was found shot twice
in the head with a rifle.
The Army ruled that his
death was a suicide.
The week before he died he had
phoned us and he told us that
somebody had taken their life
in the barracks.
I think he had taken some
tablets and he had died.
And he said, that's
a coward's way out.
And I thought, you know,
he's talking about suicide
being the coward's way out.
So I don't think he did.
It's not in his nature.
In 2002 an inquest returned an open
verdict and today the High Court
ordered that it was necessary
or desirable in the interests
of justice for a fresh
inquest to be held.
Private Gray's family believe
the truth of his death
at the Deepcut Barracks has not
yet been uncovered.
Looking at the fact
that he was shot twice in the head.
You always have to look at the fact
that he may have been murdered.
Once you've put one bullet in,
your body will drop.
You know, to be really graphic
about this, the back
of your head disappears.
So your body will drop.
The rifle will rise.
You can't do it twice.
Private Gray's death at Deepcut
sadly was not unique.
Private Sean Benton died
of gunshot wounds in 1995.
A fresh inquest into his case
will be heard next year.
Private Cheryl James
was found to have shot
herself in the same year.
There was a fresh inquest
into her case last June.
And Private James Collinson
was found dead with a single
gunshot wound in 2002.
The Army came to my door and said
your son has killed himself.
Families have been fighting
for years to learn the truth
about the Deepcut deaths.
A heavy burden to add
to their bereavement.
We don't have a choice,
there is no choice in that.
You have to carry on.
I have another son at home.
I have to carry on for his sake.
Life goes on living.
It's sort of, we do this
and then we have to carry
on with family life as well.
And keep on going.
And just try to get the truth
of what actually happened to Geoff.
It is also difficult to get
the expertise required to question
the police and Ministry of Defence.
Bereaved families in inquests should
have legal aid whenever
the state are represented.
So for instance if you go
into an inquest now and the police
are there, the Ministry of Defence
are there, the Fire Services
are there, the NHS are there
for instance, they will be quite
by taxpayers money.
Now if that is the case,
why should believed families sit
in court and simply faced that bank
of lawyers against them
with not a single lawyer
being funded for them.
It is outrageous.
The families though will press
on in the hope that one day,
hopefully soon, they get a more
convincing set of answers.
Geoff signed up
to serve his country.
He died when he was 17 years old.
His country should serve him now
and we should find the truth.
Let us look at some of the general
issues raised by the difficulties
parents have in getting inquests.
Joining me now from Salford
is Pete Weatherby QC -
a specialist in public inquiries
and inquests - including
and a whole raft of others.
Good evening. We have had a string
of cases going back it decades,
blood contamination, Hillsborough,
Orgreave, cases were families of
those involved, in some ghastly
tragedy, seal it justice has not
been done or questions have been
Do you see
commonalities? Absolutely. These
families have got to go through the
whole process yet again to try and
get at the truth, not just one
family, it is not a coincidence,
three of them as you just reported.
You mentioned blood contamination, I
could add to that the Birmingham pub
bombings, the new inquests 45 years
on. In my view there are two common
problems, the first is a duty, the
candour that needs to be a duty, a
legal duty of candour. What is a
common part of all of these cases
and apparently the Deepcut ones as
well is that there is new evidence
coming forward. Why is that coming
forward so long afterwards? What
went wrong with the original
investigations? The original
enquiries? It appears given all of
these historic cases, take the blood
contamination case, go back to the
early 1980s, when the evidence seems
to show that the Department of
Health knew that the blood was
contaminated yet was still supplying
people unknowingly who then went on
to die from either hepatitis or HIV.
In these cases there is a culture of
denial as there would be in any
authority when they are
There shouldn't be.
There is a culture of denial,
institutional defensiveness where
they reach for the denial first. If
you look at Grenfell, bringing us
right up to date, immediately after
the fire and you had the council
saying that they have done nothing
wrong, the emergency response, some
of the contractor is issuing
condolences, but at the end of them
they were saying, by the way, we did
nothing wrong either and people are
making the denials before they have
even looked at their own behaviour.
The other feature of course is that
we heard it in the peace there,
everybody is very well legally
represented apart from the families
of the victims.
Exactly. In any of
these disasters or tragedies, that
is exactly right. The Army, the
police, the local authorities, the
NHS, whatever it is, all entirely
properly fully represented, but the
victims are not. If you look at the
Birmingham pub bombings, the
families after 45 years, were
spending most of their time trying
to get funding so that they could go
to the inquests of their loved ones.
is there a point that sometimes it
is right to say it is time to close
this issue, we are not going to have
an enquiry? May be families are
clinging onto unrealistic hopes of
what might emerge or maybe the
authorities genuinely know that
there is nothing to be said. Is
there ever a defence of Saint, it is
I would look at it from the
other end of the telescope, there
should be an enquiry very quickly
and it should be done properly and
you can do that if there is a legal
duty of candour, which makes a
public authority or the public
facing private entity in these days
of privatisation, if there is a
legal duty on them to be proactive
in coming out with the truth and
owning up to their own shortcomings.
Only up to the grand shortcomings.
This is the proposed law, the
Hillsborough law. And has quite a
bit of cross-party support.
had its first reading, it has strong
support and will go back soon I hope
to the House of Commons and it
requires candour. So hopefully we
will not have these repeat inquests
15 years on. But people proactively
will have to tell the truth and it
will put the -- put victims on a
level playing field in terms of
representation. Linking public
funding to victims in disasters and
unnatural death situations.
you very much.
Something is going badly wrong
with the way we use clothes,
according to major study
being launched this evening.
In the last 15 years,
across the world, the average number
of times a garment is worn before it
ceases to be used has gone down
by more than a third.
In China, clothes are
worn 70% fewer times
than they were in 2002.
At one level, this just tells us
that as we get richer,
we like to have more new things.
And fashionable ones at that.
But the report suggests this
could potentially take us
to environmentally catastrophic
Here's the dilemma.
Fashion is an industry that's grown
in appeal over the decades.
But by its nature, it
Fashion today implies out
of fashion tomorrow.
Who wants to wear that?
The result is what today's
report calls the "take,
make, dispose" model.
The clothing industry takes
makes clothes and textiles
with them, that
are then disposed of.
That disposal reflects
massive under recycling.
And disposal itself costs tens
of millions in Britain alone.
The fact is, we've become
rather good at this model.
Going into clothing production
is a way of taking a poor country
towards middle-income status.
And clothes for consumers are
extraordinarily cheap as a result.
This is the graphic
in the report that says it all.
As the world becomes richer,
the number of garments
being produced has doubled.
But the number of times each garment
is worn has plummeted.
The solutions the report
suggests include radically
making durability more
attractive, and even promoting
more clothing rentals.
What the report does not suggest
is simply taxing clothes to make
them more expensive.
That would hurt the poor.
And being able to choose clothes
and to use them as a form
of self-expression almost defines
what it is to be a modern consumer
in an affluent society.
Now the report was produced
by the Ellen McArthur Foundation, -
she was the round the world
yachtswoman who now promotes
the idea that the economy
should be circular, -
with goods recycled round and round,
not flowing straight into landfill.
Contributors to the report included
McKinsey the consultants,
and many clothing businesses,
including Stella McCartney's.
Well, just before the official
launch earlier this evening,
I went to the Fashion Gallery
at the Victoria and Albert museum,
to talk to Ellen McArthur
and Stella McCartney herself.
First I asked Ellen if we should
blame the waste of textile materials
on the very nature of fashion.
I think the disposable nature of
fashion is one of the challenges of
the other challenge is to try to
make that fashion that changes by
definition fits within a system and
that is what the report is about,
building a broader system within
which the design, the materials
used, when they come out of the far
end as fast fashion that material
can be something that is technical
or if by -- is biodegradable.
did this right and we will more
eco-friendly in the way we dress,
you might end up out of the job
because you design one piece of
clothing and instead of us changing
it we would wear it for 20 years and
not need as many new clothes.
not worry about that. My business
model is based on sustainability and
I have a successful business. This
report looks at working together at
all levels of the industry and
creating new business from it and
looking at essentially the waist and
finding a way of reusing rate and
making it exciting, not looking at
it as a problem all the time but an
It is a $500 billion US
dollar opportunity if we can get
this right and will cover that
material. $100 billion is not
recycled every year and that is
value to the industry.
persuade people that durability is
If we are burning one
truckload of clothing every second
using it as landfill, there is
nothing attractive about that. We
all live on the planet together and
we have to survive it. It is not a
quick fix, but I think today we are
bringing awareness to it and a
It is rarely
seen here but some companies have 5
million subscribers to have access
to whatever clothing they want. When
they get a new piece of clothing,
the old one goes back. It is
effectively rental but the clothing
goes back into the system. Now if it
has durability that will go out to
someone else. When you build a
system when clothing goes back they
know what it is made from.
also a new way to look at the
fashion industry, all industries
must review their impact on the
planet now. It applies to every
It should apply to
It applies to everything
and there are exciting alternatives.
It has a second life. My clothes are
on their and you can swap and barter
I'm a bit sceptical about
the rental model with clothes, I
like my own clothes.
It is a modern
approach because to have a future we
need to have this conversation for
our children. We will have to have
What would be
your advice to an average consumer
who likes to spend money on clothes
and dress well and who sees dressing
as a form of self-expression, as
part of their identity and the way
they behave. What could they change
Right now the consumer in
this country cannot be circular with
fashion decisions, that is hard to
do because the industry is not
circular. With this report we are
trying to get the industry to look
at this vision and have a high level
of ambition. And collaborate as
people. It does not have to be
punishment, it can be sexy and
young. I get excited about the
opportunities. As a fashion designer
and businesswoman that is why I'm
here today, I'm interested in the
What you did not put in the
report is the possibility of taxes
because people will tell you what
they've got because they pay more.
It is a valid point but just taxing
clothing will not solve the problem.
Clothing now is designed in a linear
way, we burn or landfill a
People need to
look at the opportunities
financially and there is massive
opportunity to make money on every
level. There's so much waste, get
recycling incentives in place but
people would get money for recycling
their clothes properly.
to enter I suspect a frenzied
speculation about what Meghan Markle
is going to wear at her wedding when
she marries Prince Harry. Is it
healthy that we are so obsessed with
As animals on this planet
we are obsessed with strange things.
It is OK, some people are obsessed,
some people do not even know who
you're talking about. It is all
relative. I think the main thing is
just to bring a new awareness into
It would make a
big -- a big statement, the dress.
I'm happy to provide some
And now Viewsnight.
And this week we are hearing two
very different opinions
of the Trump presidency.
On Thursday, we'll be hearing
from a critic of the President,
but tonight it's a chance
for Drew Liquerman,
from Republicans Overseas UK,
to make the case for the defence.
There is a difference
between liking something,
and being addicted to it -
I like water and drink it
several times a day,
but I'm not a water junkie.
However in some cases
there is a fine line
between merely wanting something,
and yearning for it to fill
an acquired chemical need.
And here's the thing: our attachment
to smartphone technology appears
to be more in the latter category -
it is actually addictive.
You may recognise the problem,
but in fact it is not
it is designed to be so.
Because the online world is funded
mainly through advertising,
those working in it,
need to both grab and keep our
attention to survive and thrive.
Now understanding how
technology addiction works,
may make you more resilient
in resisting it.
Our technology editor David Grossman
has been finding out more -
and meeting one former Google
executive who believes what is known
as "the attention economy" poses
a threat to democracy itself.
For many of us, reaching
for our phones has become automatic.
As unthinking as blinking.
Sometimes I'll just unlock my phone
and I'll lock it again
and I won't even know
what I've looked at.
All of a sudden I might just go
on my phone and I will think,
I don't even need to go
on my phone right now.
If I'm crossing the road I can get
distracted by my phone
and realise oh wait,
there's a car there!
It's as if we're driven by a power
beyond our conscious actions.
It's not sensational
to say our brains are being hacked.
Because that's pretty
much what is happening.
Balliol College Oxford was built
to withstand the distractions
of the pre-smartphone age.
The heavy wooden doors and
castellated quad are fortifications
against attention hijack.
James Williams is a former Google
executive who became concerned that
Silicon Valley's central mission
is to interrupt our
every waking thought.
He resigned and now
studies at Balliol.
The way we are monetising most
of the information in the world
is by distracting people,
keeping them from doing
what they want to do,
rather than helping them do
what they want to do.
Now, I don't know anybody,
I've never met anybody at least,
who wants to spend all day
on Facebook or wants to keep
clicking articles all day.
If there are people like that,
I'd love to meet them, because I'd
love to understand their mind
and their priorities.
But you know when you think
about the goals that people
have for themselves,
they tend to be things like,
you know the things that
when we are on our deathbed
we will regret not having done.
Like, you know, I want to take
that trip with my family
or I want to learn how to play piano
or, you know, spend
more time with friends.
These are the real human goals that
people have and these are the goals
in my mind that technology ought
to be helping us pursue.
If they don't do that then I don't
know what technology is for.
Most technology companies
have another goal.
Welcome to the attention economy.
Because the internet is funded
largely by advertising,
companies need us glued
to their apps, or they
don't make money.
Today we're going to
set a new mission...
Although Facebook founder
Mark Zuckerberg maintains that his
company's mission is, quote...
To bring the world closer together.
..A couple of weeks ago
Facebook's first president
expressed a very different,
even sinister, objective.
How do we consume as much
of your time and conscious
attention as possible?
And that means that we need to sort
of give you a little dopamine hit
every once in awhile.
Because someone liked or commented
on the photo or post or whatever.
And that's going to get
you to contribute more content.
And that's going to get you,
you know, more likes and comments.
It's a social validation
feedback group that, I mean,
is exactly the kind of thing that
a hacker like myself would come up
with because you are exploiting
a vulnerability in human psychology.
You can see these results
in places like this.
These students at Bournemouth
University have grown
up with smartphones.
They can't imagine
being without them.
The relationship I have
with my phone is quite intense
because I use it like,
all the time.
I think it is part of my body now.
It is always with me.
I feel like if I don't
have my phone with me,
and everybody's like,
talking about memes, for example,
I wouldn't understand the joke
or what everybody's laughing
at because I wasn't on my phone.
So how does technology
hack its way into our brains?
According to psychologists, it taps
into our neural reward system.
We are driven by natural rewards
and these kinds of natural rewards
are very basic rewards.
Food, water, sex.
These are the sorts of things
that are making us happy
on an everyday basis.
But with technology,
some of these needs are almost
being replaced by the kinds
of social notifications
we may have received,
by the smartphone technology
that we are using.
So, you know, these
are technological rewards that can
be given to us that can
trick our brain into having those
rewarding moments and to receiving
most technological rewards that can
make us happy eventually.
This is the fundament
of our being, though,
those motivations you describe,
that's the fundamental operating
system of our minds, isn't it?
Tapping into our reward system
is just the start of the way
technology is engineered
to hold our attention.
In the '50s the psychologist
B F Skinner discovered that pigeons
could be made more obsessed
with earning rewards if you made
those rewards unpredictable.
Now that produces in a rat
or a pigeon or a monkey and in a man
a very high rate of activity.
And if you build up,
you can get enormous amounts
of behaviour out of these organisms
for very little pay.
You don't need to give them very
much to induce a lot of that.
Now that is the heart
of all gambling devices.
The way apps get you to pull down
to refresh the screen
is based on Skinner's work.
It's just like a fruit machine.
You pull, it whirrs,
and you get a variable reward.
Sometimes nothing, sometimes
you hit the jackpot.
There is a whole industry
of consultants, of writers,
who are basically helping people
who are designers draw
on this big catalogue
of cognable vulnerabilities.
And exploit them for
the purposes of giving us hope.
Keeping us using these products.
Another of these vulnerabilities
is our brain's in-built
aversion to loss.
For example, Snapchat shows
what it calls streaks.
How many days a message
chain has gone unbroken.
Facebook is now testing
a similar feature.
It's all designed to
compel you to message.
And it works.
It's like a fire emoji
and then it will be like oh,
you have been on a streak for three
days and then you want
to sort of like compete,
like with other people.
Oh, how many streaks do you have?
And you feel like you have to reply.
When it goes low, like you're about
to lose the streak, it tells you.
So then you feel the need,
even if you weren't going to message
them anyway, or send any pictures,
you feel the need to.
Smartphones also exploit our brain's
in-built drive to finish things.
If you remove the cue that
we've reached the end,
well, we just keep going.
A food psychologist discovered that
when a soup bowl was fitted
with a hidden tube that kept it
topped up, people would drink
pints and pints of soup
in an effort to finish the bowl.
That's why the Twitter
and Facebook feeds never end.
We never get a cue to stop.
And it's why video sites
like YouTube and Netflix will start
the next video even before the one
you're watching has finished.
Before I've been on my phone
watching YouTube videos back to back
for like, two hours.
When you do actually sit down
and try and calculate the hours,
you realise how much time has been
wasted on things that you could have
been doing that were productive.
You feel like you're...
So why don't you stop?
I don't know.
I don't want to say
it's an addiction,
but I just need my phone!
Another very powerful way
that we are manipulated
is in what we watch.
The scientists of the attention
economy know that our brains
are drawn to stories that prompt
strong emotions, like outrage.
Balanced discussions may appeal
to our conscious intellects,
but not the subconscious urges that
will keep us clicking and scrolling.
So that is what we are served,
a diet of outrage.
And it doesn't matter of the stories
are fake or real, they all serve
to grab our attention.
Even reputable news
organisations are having
to adapt their coverage to compete.
In the 30s a former student
of Balliol College, Aldous Huxley,
predicted a world where manipulation
and destruction combined to create
a happy, docile populace
incapable of self-government.
One way of looking at this is that
you know, the attention economy
is a kind of denial of service
attack against the human will.
And that has big implications
in our own lives because there
are things we want to do today,
this week, this year.
It has big political
implications because, you know,
the will of the people is the basis
of the authority of democracy.
And if that's being undermined,
our political systems,
the possibility of democracy is very
straightforwardly being undermined.
The distraction and manipulation
of the attention economy is only
going to get more refined and more
compelling, and less noticeable.
For example, Facebook and other big
tech firms are investing
heavily in virtual reality.
So unless we are prepared to change
the way we pay for the online world,
we could literally lose
ourselves in technology.
David Grossman there. It could be
the biggest problem of our time.
I'm joined by Tristan Harris.
He is co-founded the movement "time
well spent" to spark an important
conversation about the kind
of future we want from
the technology industry
and was a design ethicist
and product philosopher
at Google until 2016,
where he studied how technology
influences a billion users'
attention, well-being and behaviour.
He was described by the Atlantic
Magazine "as the closest thing
Silicon valley has to a conscience".
Good evening. I am interested in how
much of a problem we should really
think this is. You likened it to the
slot machines but this isn't going
to bankrupt you or kill you in the
way that some other drugs do. I
wonder whether addiction is quite
the right way to look at it.
much bigger than addiction, I would
call it an existential threat to the
human race and the reason is because
there are 2 billion people who use a
smartphone every day, 2 billion
people use Facebook, that is more
than a number of followers of
Christianity, these tech companies
have more influence over our daily
thoughts and some religions given
that we check our phones 150 times a
day. The total surface area of how
much technology is steering 2
billion people and their thoughts is
enormous, even when you are not
looking at your phone, it is
implementing or creating the kind of
thought you're thinking about now.
The challenge is as James said and
we were allies at Google in trying
to raise this conversation, is that
these companies goals are
fundamentally misaligned with our
goals and the goals of democracy.
That is why it is an existential
It is not an existential
threat, you need to find the harm it
is doing. Yes, we are wasting quite
a lot of time, yes we are sometimes
misdirected to rubbish when we would
have better things to do with our
lives, but talking about existential
threats, you need to say what actual
harm it is doing to all those people
who choose to use their phones in
I would ask in the 150
times a day will recheck, what is
going on in that moment right before
we check. Is it because we are
sitting there and we a conscious
choice and that is not what is
happening, what is happening is that
we are building up anxieties and as
it builds, it causes us to self
interrupt. We actually interrupt
ourselves about every 40 seconds.
are complicit in this process, we
can, smoking addicts will tell you
it is very difficult to stop smoking
and lock the cigarettes in a
cupboard but if you're fed up with
your phone and you want some
uninterrupted time, you put the
phone away or you turn it off. It is
not that difficult. The reason we
don't is because we like getting
stuff on the phone and it connects
us and we get a reward from it,
We get enormous benefits
from these technology companies, I
think the challenges is that their
goals are not aligned with ours. The
one you mentioned, you have 100
million teenagers, a vulnerable
population and you are basically
saying, for each one of your
friends, it shows the number of days
in a row you have sent messages back
and forth, it is like putting them
on treadmills and time their legs
together, they both have to keep
running otherwise they lose their
streak. It is like we have hijacked
what 100 million teenagers view as
the currency of friendship, the way
kids know if they are friends is if
they keep that streak up. That is
where we are developmentally harming
an entire generation of children.
That is one of the clearest examples
where it is not just addiction...
lot of parents would say, I would
stop my child doing that. What do
you do? Are you an addict? Do you
feel you have controlled the
destruction of your phone?
haven't and I think one of the
things that we said when we talk to
all these experts in provision
technology is that even if you know
how these techniques work, it still
works on you. You're sitting inside
of this suit, all of these instincts
that are getting close, if you wake
up in the morning and you see photos
of your friends missing out, you're
missing out on what they were doing
last night, that will pull on any
human being, you can be the director
of the CIA and that will affect you.
We are all human. This is about
whether or not the goals of
technologies align with that.
That's all we've got
time for this evening.
But before we go, we bring you news
of an exciting new film
with a soundtrack by the composer
It's called Washing Machine -
The Movie, and it consists
of sixty-six minutes of a particular
brand of washing machine
going through its forty
degree wash cycle -
accompanied by a specially composed
minimalist soundtrack by Mr Nyman.
The movie will premiere
in Leicester Square next month -
but we've managed to get
you a sneak peak.