High Tech Trash & Urban Legibility with Dietmar Offenhuber PhD

Have you ever wondered if your efforts to save the world are in fact doing so? You’re not alone. There’s research being conducted to see just how affective seemingly positive environmental efforts are and if there’s more efficient ways to help the world. Dietmar Offenhuber, an assistant professor of art and design and public policy at Northeastern University in Boston, has recently published a book called, Waste is Information: Infrastructure, Legibility and Governance. This book comes out of a project he worked on at MIT for the Trash|Track Project that involves sticking little electronic GPS sensors on items of garbage, tracking it all, and collecting detailed data about the paths are trash takes after we throw it out.

Subscribe to the How to Save the World Podcast on Youtube and Itunes.

Katie: Could we start by you explaining what is a “smart city” to people who don’t know what that term is?

Dietmar: There are many words, and “smart city” can mean many different things. Basically, there’s a lot of interest in using technology to make the city more legible, to get a bit of understanding of what is going on in the city and all of its infrastructures in order to figure out how we can improve the city both in terms of its technical but also its human and social processes.

I will say don’t necessarily subscribe to the “smart city” paradigm, but I’m very much interested in technologies and cities.

Katie: I think it’s a nice catch-all phrase to mean more data, sensors, and understanding.

In the blurb about your book, you talked about this problem of cities being opaque. What is the big problem that we have in the cities at the moment when we don’t have data? What are we suffering from?

Dietmar: I’m coming originally from urban design. In urban design, there’s this notion of legibility. A legible city is this little city that we can find our way in without the map.

It’s a classical question for urban designers to figure out how to design a city, so then its legible.

Surprisingly, this has not been considered for infrastructure beyond transportation infrastructure of course. Infrastructure and public services, such as waste systems, they make up such a big part of our cities. They are not really designed to be legible, so we don’t really have a lot of information about how they work, what is going on, but of course it doesn’t mean that it’s not important. Everyone has an opinion about waste systems, and I’m really interested in how we can make waste systems more legible.

Katie: It sounds to me what you mean by this concept of urban legibility is that we have visual maps; we can look at Google Maps or maps that have sort of latitude and longitude. We kind of understand the X, Y, Z of the physical world of mapping.

When it comes to all the movements of everything, of people, of matter, of trash, for example, there’s a large amount of stuff going in and out. If we’re not tracking this, we just have no concept of the flow of anything on top of this map, right?

Dietmar: Specifically with waste systems, this is exactly the problem because traditionally waste systems are municipal responsibility, so they’re very fragmented. Every city has a different system. They categorize waste differently, so all these things are a little bit incompatible with each other. A lot of waste scholars have written about this central role of categories.

At the same time, the waste system is global. It’s very complex and involves many social, economic, and political aspects. Of course, the latitude and longitudes are one part of it, but there are so many more aspects to these socio-technical systems that are hidden.

Katie: In the future, we might have these cities that have all of this detailed information, for example, about garbage. In the best scenario, what would this type of future that we’d be going toward be like?

What would it feel like being in this type of “smart city,” for use of a better of word, when we’d have all this information? Why should we care about going in this direction?

Dietmar: If you think about waste systems, for example, everyone sees it as a different kind of problem.

Homeowners or residents, it’s an aesthetic problem. They don’t want to see trash in front of the street.

Officials or social scientists, it might be a public health problem. It might be a problem of environmental justice.

For engineers, it’s a technical problem.

There are all these kind of different perspectives. Each of these groups have their own way of representing and measuring these systems.

Of course, those different representations don’t always show the same picture, so there’s a negotiation going on. What problem is our most important? Is this aesthetic problem more important than the public health problem? Usually, it’s the other way around.

You get the sense that it’s a constant negotiation through these different maps and datasets that we collect about the city.

Talking about the future, I think it’s more about coming up with a way to talk about these systems that is a little bit more in line with how these systems actually work today and not how they actually were 50 or 60 years ago.

We still talk about infrastructure in a way that we pretend that there’s one central authority who builds these systems, who runs them and who maintains them, and it’s all a very binary structure. In reality, it’s all very complex and there a lot of different actors involved. This is not really captured in the way we talk about and measure these systems.

Katie: The sort of future I see, when all this stuff really gets off the ground, is that we’ll be able to develop real-time feedback loops and really look into any particular system. Then dramatically, we can optimize it in a way that we can’t when it’s opaque.

I see it as being able to map out all of this data and being able to see all of this low-hanging fruit for change. Then be able to say, “We can change that.” When we can apply those design techniques, like color, we’ll be able to just improve everything so much. For example, you look and say, “This is a red zone,” and everybody knows what the red zone is. That’s what I see happening. Do you see it going that way?

Dietmar: What you just described is really a perfect example of what I describe as accountability-oriented design. You come up with a design of data, of interfaces, that helps you get a sense of the governance, or your own role, in the system. You get a sense of what’s going on in these systems in my daily life.

For investigative journalists or activists, understanding or getting this kind of information is a very hard problem.

During my research, I worked with different groups, such as the Basel Action Network (BAN) investigation and Global Invest Trade. Those investigations are very complicated and require a lot of detective work to piece together things.

I’m interested in technologies that allow these kind of activists or researchers, also companies and city officials, to have better tools to map out these systems and get a better sense of what happens.

“Nobody wonders where, each day, they carry their load of refuse. Outside the city, surely; but each year the city expands, and the street cleaners have to fall farther back. The bulk of the outflow increases and the piles rise higher, become stratified, extend over a wider perimeter”- Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities (Credits:http://senseable.mit.edu/trashtrack/)

Katie: Can you explain in a bit more detail about what you did with the MIT Trash | Track project? You put sensors on pieces of garbage, right?

Dietmar: Almost eight years ago in 2009 at the Sensible City Lab, we attached three thousand items (it was GPS trackers) on garbage items in a way that they can’t be separated. There was a lot of engineering involved in just trying to figure that out how to do this.

Then we followed those items through the waste system for about six months. We tracked objects all over the continent from Canada to Mexico, from the west coast to the East Coast.

I think it’s a very powerful thing. Tt inspired me for follow-up projects, to look at informal waste systems in Brazil, how does a system works where there’s very little formal organization.

Also, projects for these kind of questions of participatory infrastructure governance, like in the US where you have all these new experiments of how each individual can be more involved.

Katie: Another concept I noticed you bring up in your book is this intersection between technology and policy, or governance, which you just alluded to. What changes are you starting to see? For example, with trash, we are getting this data and then governments can start using it to make better decisions. What have you seen in regards to that with the Trash | Track project?

Dietmar: The Trash | Track project created a lot of feedback from a lot of different people. For me, it was interesting that we had cities and city officials who really wanted to better understand their waste systems.

We had inquiries from activists and advocacy groups who wanted to investigate the specific case. I spoke also with the EPA and with people at Interpol who investigate environmental crimes who are also very interested. Of course, they use their own tracking methodologies, but they are still very interested in these projects.

Big companies in the US also have these problems that they have to work with all these waste management contractors, let’s say Google Dev. They have waste management contractors. If those contractors do something illicit, like throw all the garbage into the river, the company is liable, so there’s this concept of strict liability.

They also have an incentive to understand their own previous logistics, their own waste management practices. That kind of showed me that this need for more transparent infrastructures is very pervasive. It’s not a top-down versus bottom-up thing, but it’s something that concerns almost a reactor.

Katie: I think what you’re saying is that once you actually start putting the data out there, everyone’s like, “Oh my God, I need that! Whoa, can we have some more of this?” They’re hungry for the information, so they can optimize the situation.

What was the craziest thing that you saw once you could actually see all the trash going all around the country? Did you ever feel an “oh-my-god” moment?

Dietmar: We had a couple of really interesting puzzles, and the analysis of the data was not so straightforward as one might expect. We wrote algorithms to automatically cluster and identify locations and stuff like that.

In the end, what we had to do is manually look at and interpret every individual trace to figure out what was going on there, because the data that you get is often a little bit inconclusive.

You don’t know whether this location is basically on route or whether this was a spot where waste was sitting for a long time. There were a lot of these questions, and we stumbled across a lot of really interesting cases.

For example, we had a couple of printer cartridges that we tracked, from pretty much similar locations in Seattle. They ended up in the same facility in Mexico.

We also saw that the way they went there was often very different. So one would just go down through California along Interstate 5. Then another one would go first to Chicago, and then from Chicago all the way back to California and the Mexican border.

We were wondering, “How is this possible? This looks very erratic.” Of course, it looks very inefficient to take the trash first to Chicago from Seattle and then back to Mexico.

Then we saw that, based on the facilities that we visited along the lines, this was using a freight train as a transportation mode. When we did the calculation of the carbon footprint, it was actually more efficient or used less energy compared to the truck that lends the straight direction through California.

The lesson here is that things are a little bit more complicated than you might imagine, so it’s a very interesting landscape. The question of what is the right thing to do with trash is not always so easy to answer.

Katie: Did you track both recyclables and non-recyclables?

Dietmar: We limited ourselves to municipal solid waste and recyclables, so we didn’t have industrial waste, for example.

We actually had a list of what we were looking for based on a typical composition that a household produces. And there was milk containers, typical newspapers, cardboard, batteries, electronics, and regular garbage. All kinds of different things.

I think we didn’t include organics because we didn’t want to throw the electronic devices where they might contaminate the compost stream.

Other than that, we pretty much covered all different types.


Katie: Once you could see that these supposedly recycled items went on these really long routes, did that make you heightened about recycling?

How do you feel about recycling now that you’ve done this project?

Dietmar: I mean recycling is a complicated issue because for some materials, for example cardboard, it’s very useful and saves a lot of energy.

For glass, it’s good because the glass is not on the street and it kind of minimizes the litter problem, but it doesn’t really have a big environmental impact either way.

For plastic, it’s a little bit tricky because there’s so much of it. It’s also difficult to recycle a lot of that because it depends on the purity of the material and how well it is sorted.

What really stood out for us was electronics as quite a big challenge because it’s a very valuable material that potentially could be recycled. There’s a lot of value to capture, but at the same time, it’s very difficult to collect and very difficult to dismantle. A lot of things can go wrong if it’s informally recycled. Pollution and health impacts become relevant.

That was a interesting challenge for the electronics, cellphones, computers, batteries, and so on.

Katie: I’ve read a bunch of life cycle analysis reports on recycling because I have this suspicion that recycling uses up more energy and has a bigger environmental footprint than in its gains.

All the reports that I read, I found that wasn’t the case. It didn’t have a bigger environmental footprint, but the environmental saving was really small.

If you were to take a plastic bottle and then melt it down to turn it into a plastic bottle, or take a glass to make it into a new one, over and over again versus using virgin materials, it just wasn’t a big environmental win. Recycling has big environmental costs. Recycling plastic uses up lots of water. You still have to melt it down. You’re still going to have trucks.

Do you think we should just give up on recycling? Apart from cardboard, like you said that has benefits, should we just let it go? Is it too much work with not enough gains?

Dietmar: Yeah, the way how I look at systems is that you always have to look at the whole system. Recycling is really, in some cases as you say, very problematic.

We cannot solve environmental problems through recycling if we at the same time don’t really look at the production of things. We have to look at these things together.

There’s a lot of rhetoric around recycling always being something very positive, which is problematic, and I completely agree with you. There are a lot of emerging policies of extended producer responsibility where manufacturers are included in the whole process and also have to bear some of the costs.

Those things also face resistance from certain groups, and then recycling becomes a very easy way out to say, “Well, let’s put all the responsibility on the individual.”

Of course the individual is responsible, but a lot of other actors are also responsible and sometimes even much more responsible for how the system operates. There are a lot of complicated questions.

Katie: I think it’s something that’s not often thought about clearly is this difference between individual-blame psychology versus a systems-focused solution. Maybe blame is not the best word, but an individual focus on solutions. Using an example as of a child in a bad home is a really good way to explain it. If you have a child who’s doing badly at school and they’re acting out, we can say, “Oh, they’re just a terrible child. That child’s just a bad apple.” But if you look at their home life, you can say, “Well, they’re actually at a family that’s troubled.” That family is in a situation that’s troubled, in a world that’s troubled, and that the child is just a symptom of the whole.

We wouldn’t bring that into this kind of systems thinking into sustainability. How do we need to evolve the way we approach sustainability? To get away from this individual-blame psychology, more systems theory, but not let people off the hook. What do you think about that?

Dietmar: Very, very good example that you brought. I think there’s this rhetoric that in the end the consumers are the ones who basically determine how the system works. They buy the products from company A instead of Company B, and that in the end, everything is determined by the consumer behavior. We all know that in reality it doesn’t work like that at all.

Consumers has very little ways of even understanding what is going on. The consumer doesn’t really create all the options. They might buy the cheapest thing, but the way the whole system is structured is in the hands of the individual, which of course doesn’t mean that the individual is not part of this system you know.

We all we all entangled in it, but I think that those kinds of questions are exactly what I meant by these negotiations on the governance level.

What you also just described is the different ways of reading the system. You can read the system in a way that it all comes down to individual behavior or you can read the system in a way that it all comes down to executive decisions by big companies and how those different viewpoints are negotiated.

It is something that I’m interested in to address through data and through open governance and accountability technologies.

Katie: I actually put this book together of 150 zero-waste tips. It’s something that I personally really care about, so I put the book out there it’s done well.

You know quite a few people bought it, and it’s very much an individual manual. I kind of lost heart a bit because I was always coming from a systems mindedness, and I really wanted to develop something that would change the system. Then I realized I had to put something in there for the individual.

I’ve heard quite a few people criticize recycling and even criticize the movement to pick up trash off the street. There’s something called Clean-up Australia Day and Clean Up the World, and it’s actually sponsored by McDonald’s.

We could argue that the entire recycling movement is only there to provide a marriage, or a panacea, to consumerism, to disposable consumerism.

I wrote this in this introduction to say you only need recycling if you have a disposability-based economy.

They’re trying to sell it as being this really great way out, but if you don’t have this a wasteful disposability based economy, then you don’t need recycling.

Do you see recycling that way? Is this almost like a green washing of disposable consumerism?

Dietmar: Interestingly, there is excellent proof by Samantha McBride under the title Recycling Reconsidered where she traces the history of where recycling came from. She makes exactly this argument that threat of basically a new tax for manufacturers responded by creating these recycling initiatives that would shift the whole responsibility to the individual.

There’s arguments that this has been an important part.

If we look at recycling as a way to capture value from the waste stream, this is something that always happens through history and maybe they mean different things.

If you say “recycling,” there might be one way of talking about recycling as these initiatives sponsored by McDonald’s, but there might be also another way to think of the concept.

At some point, just capturing value is an important part of any type of engagement with waste systems. I actually looked at these kind of waste picker cooperatives in Brazil who got together to collect more material so that they can sell it back to industry as a commodity.

The way they sort and clean these kind of plastic materials reaches such a high quality and such a high purity that would be completely unattainable in a single-stream system. They really managed to separate it out and create a very high-quality product. It’s very interesting to look at what exactly happens there.

A lot of the problems with recycling are also related to the pervasive use of plastic packaging materials, so looking into supply chains and looking into packaging practices and product is very important.

Katie: Yeah, and it’s really crazy how difficult it is to live without making any trash. If you wanted to take the individualist approach to say, “Well, I cannot be a part of this system,” it’s almost completely impossible!

Have you seen those people that make a jar of trash? Bea Johnson, she’s like a famous person who does it.

I’ve done that for little bits of time in my life. Like going to the gym every day, I’ve got it down for maybe six weeks at a time or maybe three months when I’ve been doing really well. But to function against the kind of laws of the system you are in, it requires enormous commitment and cognitive ability to override all the competing forces.

Like what you’re saying, the more data that we can gather, the more we can use it to take this systems-wide approach to solving our problems and not get stuck in the individual mindedness too much.

Dietmar: The data is not going to solve the problem. It’s basically just a language to talk about it. It’s not a solution. To some extent, it can be changed but it’s not one solution that gives you everything. It’s not very simple.

New York Skyline

Katie: What do you think is the hardest thing about getting us to make this leap into this urban legibility, this kind of new world? Being able to have this better data, these better decisions, this better policy?

Dietmar: One of the problems that I constantly try to address in a way is this kind of binary thinking, that it’s top-down versus bottom-up. Recycling is good and landfill is bad. Those very simple dichotomies that make it easy to think about these systems, but unfortunately everything that is related to infrastructure, and I use the word infrastructure to describe a socio-technical system that a lot of social, technical, and political things come together… they don’t really work that way.

It’s always about embracing the messiness of these systems. They are never finished. Yes, it’s never, “Okay, they’re in development, but once the system is finished, everything will be fine.” That never happens. It’s always in progress.

To this earlier point, what is the role of the individual? A couple of years back, I edited this volume called Accountability Technologies where I looked at these bottom-up initiatives of activists and organizations who produce data and then try to insert it back into the governance process into policy.

That doesn’t have magically just by collecting the data. You have to make alliances, you have to convince people, you have to establish evidence, and find the right groups to work with.

All of these things are traditional aspects of governance and political work, but just understanding what the role of data is in this context today, tha’ts the hard part to crack.

Katie: What I’m hearing is that it’s really almost a mindset. You’re not saying there’s one corporation that’s completely against us. There’s one political party that’s completely against us. It’s people’s selfishness or greed.

I mention them because they’re commonly what people say when asked why is the world the way it is. But you’re saying it’s really getting everyone who’s involved in this system, getting that consciousness around the complexity, and that there’s not one right answer. It’s just so many different factors, and we really need to look at the whole of elevating consciousness into that space in order to get over this hump. Is that right? Is that what I heard?

Dietmar: Yes, it’s not possible that we are all have experts in systems thinking. This is just way outside of the scope of the individual.

It is still important to think about systems in that way. I believe one challenge that I see is we have to resist this temptation to see technology as a solution to these problems because it’s often sold like that. “Smart city” and these terms are really in this category where we think that we have to introduce a new technology in order to address these problems.

The way I see the role of technology is that it’s really like a language. It’s something that we can use to discuss things on a broader scale that goes beyond the capacity of a face-to-face meeting, town hall, make a forum that is more inclusive, but this temptation to say the Hyperloop, or some futuristic new technology, will solve all these problems for us.

I think that these expectations are actually part of the problem rather than just not very effective.

KP: It’s pretty big here in the Silicon Valley to say and to think that technology can solve things.

One of the popular beliefs is that if we just go to Mars, we’ll solve everything. Do you think it will solve all those problems if we go to Mars?

We can just bring all the trash. Technology can really do a lot. I think there’s definitely a lot in technology. I’m definitely a technophilic person, but we’re humans as well. Human beings are creating the technology, so it’s not external to us. It is very much something that we make to solve our problems.

Which brings me onto this one phrase that you said in one of your videos where you’ve talked about cyber-utopianism. Do you think cyber-utopianism is a thing? What are your thoughts about that word and what it means?

Dietmar: This is something that I was inspired by maybe 20 or 30 years ago. Now, I’m 44, so I’m looking at things slowly in this historical perspective.

I was involved in digital media, internet, media art, and experimental technologies pretty much since the early 1990s, so I went with this technology through these different phases. At the beginning, it was very much about speculating and about how would the world change. All these possibilities.

About 15 years ago or so, I started changing the way I asked these questions because I saw that it already has changed so much and society has embraced all these things. I thought that it’s much more interesting to look at how people are using technologies and how technology is deployed in all these different parts of society and go to the social and political questions that are connected to it.

Rather than taking a very close look at what is happening at the moment, instead of speculating about something in the future because the future has already happened, what exists right now is much more complex and interesting than what a futurist could imagine.

Katie: It’s definitely something I’ve noticed in Silicon Valley, this thinking. I said it before, but we can focus and imagine these technologies, but I feel that one thing is left out of the traditional engineering mind or the computer science mind.

I studied engineering myself. We definitely did not think about the social construct of technology or how people used it. In the Silicon Valley scene, it’s very much about the technology but not as much about the questions you said.

The real questions we need to be asking are how is the technology sort of interacting with is people and how are we going to use it to create the worlds that we want to create?

Dietmar: This is absolutely my opinion. There’s nothing bitter or critical about that because engineers produce knowledge. They have a certain perspective. Other people have a different perspective, so nobody really has the complete picture. It’s about constructing this understanding of the relationship between society and technology through conversations, through exchange.

I don’t expect an engineer to be able to understand all the political subtleties of how their product plays out in the real world, but at the same time, I also don’t imagine that the social scientist understands all the technological difficulties.

Although, a lot of people become a transdisciplinary and work in different realms, so we see more mutual understanding emerging.

Katie: I think that’s where innovation really comes from with the concept of creativity.

I was just writing an essay this last week on why we need to get more into creativity and a whole section of it is on being cross-disciplinary, bringing different domains together.

You know what you’re passionate about is bringing these two domains together.

I mean that’s really where innovation’s at, the confluence of all these different niches.

What is the one thing that gets you really excited? The one thing when you wake up, when you think about the most exciting thing about what you do, that makes you excited to get out there. The one thing that really tickles you about your work, what is that?

Dietmar: It’s funny because you always go through these cycles. When you are really focused on one topic, at some point, you are so fed up and don’t want to use it anymore. Then you recognize something random and you’re reminded of why you feel attached to each field, into your research topics.

It’s always something different but you’re always looking at the world through your own lens. You always notice things that remind you why what you’re doing is relevant.

Shortly after I finished the manuscript to this book, I got a call from the United Nations. They wanted me to work on data projects in Kosovo and Moldova.

It’s so exciting to see, to be able to do those things in the real world. It’s very interesting to suddenly be able to use these data methodologies to tackle a real world problem!

Thrills in real change

Katie: There’s definitely thrills in real change. Coming back to this book that I’ve been writing, one of the things I’m trying to inspire in the audience is that when you get the strategy right to create real and measurable change in the real world, not just a fantasy you’ve changed because you create a festival and you think that the festival changed, but you actually make change.

It’s remarkable how inspiring and exciting that is. It really does give you that toe-tingling, exciting feeling. “Wow, I can actually use this to influence the world,” which as you said, it seems to be the thing that you’ve been riding the wave of inspiration, you’ve been recently writing.

Dietmar: Exactly, and with Trash | Track, this was the most beautiful part of this project. Suddenly, this image that we got from people who were inspired by the project and wanted to try it out in their own town.

All this feedback changed the project a lot. Initially, we worked with volunteers because we needed a way of getting a good sample, so that we can distribute the sensors throughout the city.

The passion of the volunteers became such an important element of the project that we didn’t initially anticipate it. It really changed the project. After the project was finished, it was inspiring for me.

Katie: Yeah, and that just happens when you know you’re doing something that works, which is something that’s so cool about getting this stuff right.

This is my favorite question to ask everybody, which is: if there was one thing that you could change in the world related to your work, or one thing that you could achieve in your career looking back, like one win, what would you choose? What would you choose it to be?

Dietmar: Oh, this is maybe the hardest question. Maybe, I would install a light switch on every street light so you can just turn it on and off. No, sorry. Maybe I cannot really seriously answer that question.

Katie: Okay, what about just one thing that you think would be fun to do? Maybe not the big win, but something if there could be one change in the world that would have a big effect on everything?

Dietmar: It’s such a hard question. I can’t answer it. I’m sorry.

Katie: Okay! Okay! Down with my favorite question he’s not going to answer it. I’m going to end with the other part of my favorite question which is: in a hundred years in the future, where would you see the type of work that you’re doing? Where would you like it to be? In the best possible scenario, where would the world be in a hundred years?

Dietmar: The best possible scenario. Well, all we do is really just a tiny bit.

I’m too realistic. If you look at the way how research works, it’s always such an incremental and long term thing to get things done.

Katie: And what about the field? What if that if we narrow it in a little bit and say what about the field of urban data or urban legibility? Where would you see that in 100 years in its best possible incarnation?

The author of seminal science-fiction works is taking a very pragmatic approach to the world’s environmental challenges ( credit:https://www.theguardian.com)

Dietmar: In the best or in the most realistic one, Bruce Sterling wrote a lot about that situation that you have once you pretty much know where everything is in the world, if every object is somehow addressable.

I think we’re definitely going in this direction, but it’s definitely not necessarily always a positive scenario. At MIT, people spoke a lot about smart dust sensors becoming as small as dust particles.

A pervasive understanding of everything, but it’s also a very scary thing for me.

Yeah, it is hard. There’s always this notion of “be careful what you wish for.” It might become true, but then you find out that it’s actually not that great.

Katie: You are really passionate about urban legibility and using data and understanding for decision making, but you also can see that it can be negative, and also scared of this future. You see it in these two different ways. Both this really exciting positive light and also this potentially negative light.

So there’s this dualism in what you do.

Dietmar: Absolutely, absolutely!

You look at the whole way people talk about legibility, like sometimes it’s very easy to use this in a very authoritarian way and really it’s just another word for global surveillance.

On the other hand, it’s also about making sense of what is around you and making sense of your environment. There is definitely always this tension.

Katie: This has been a really interesting conversation because I’ve been coming from the world view that just the more data the better, the more transparent the better, the more that we have, the more that we can start to change everything for the better.

I was seeing it in a bit more of a black and white way, and since speaking to you, it seems to just have so many more dimensions to the complexity of trying to save the world, which is what we’re talking about here today.

If you would like to watch this interview on YouTube you can find it on the YouTube channel, How to Save the World and you try to listen to it on podcast, you can find it on iTunes and make sure that you sign up to my website KatiePatrick.com. There’s a bunch of free resources there that you can subscribe to. To get more design techniques, behavior, data science techniques to apply to your environmental or social change project.



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store