I think I can safely say Bruce and I have formed a friendship, both professional and from similar interests, even though he's retired and I'm not a psychologist. I learn psychology to help lead. We're both intrigued by addiction. We both want to improve our environmental situation, not just give in.

He likes the idea of the Spodek Method. He hopes it works beyond just one person. He's not sure it can. In this episode we start practicing it.

Working with him was one of the more challenging times doing the Spodek Method. I expect that as more people learn it, these conversations with Bruce will make effective lessons in challenging cases. He wasn't trying to challenge me. So far, it just works with some personalities more smoothly than with others. Finding examples of different types lets me learn how to apply it with different people and personality types.

Some types I haven't figured out. Let's see how things go with Bruce. If you're learning the Spodek Method, I think you can learn a lot from this conversation. I'd say it's advanced. On further thought, it might be me. Maybe other people would have an easy time. If so, let me know what I might be missing.

I rarely get to talk to people who expect living more sustainably to be joyful and rewarding from personal experience, not just hoping for the best. I enjoyed sharing that perspective with Erica last time, I invited her back with no specific agenda.

This episode presents conversation between two people who have left mainstream culture and are living more how many people agree we should, but hold themselves back. So they speak in speculation and generalities. They still think more sustainability means lower quality of life because they can't speak from experience otherwise.

Erica and I can, so we do. We don't lament missing out on things we don't do any more because we don't miss them. Moreover, we realize they weren't helping us in the first place. Soon we'll all talk about how much we prefer living more locally with less stuff. Today, for listeners who suspect it's possible but haven't witnessed it, enjoy listening.

I loved where this conversation led.

We began by talking about recent news: Greta Thunberg taking a political stand and acting publicly on it on an issue unrelated to the environment. Guy described how he saw this action distracting and undermining her credibility in sustainability. We got to talking about overwhelming tribalism today.

In the process, Guy shared views he once held that he overcame, specifically about Apartheid. We talked about ones views changing.

In the end we got to Guy sharing what I read as something he's had to settle on: that while he generally prefers limited government, low tax policies, with our environmental problems, he's concluded otherwise. Like with national defense, where you need aircraft carriers and such, with the environment he's concluded we need big government solutions.

I shared some of my views on big action but to limit government's ability to permit pollution. I read that the views were new to him and attractive. They led him to read my book. Sorry you have to wait until fall to read it, but what I share in this episode hints at why he's written a wonderful endorsement for the book.

I start my conversation with Andy with what brought me to him: the meal after recording with the guy who hired him, podcast guest Sven Gierlinger, and the Washington Post article that read like a paid ad for their food, Hospital food is a punchline. These chefs are redefining it. I didn't record in my conversation with Sven how off-the-charts the food was because I at it after recording.

Andy was the Executive Chef at the hospital where we met who prepared that food. It was amazing. It would have been amazing in any restaurant, let alone a hospital.

We talk about two main things. One was the art of food preparation. Andy shared his path there from washing dishes through working with chef Raymond Blanc, chef Daniel Boulud, and the restaurant Rouge Tomate. At each stage he learned appreciation for ingredients and honed his craft.

The other was changing culture. Regular listeners know my goal in sustainability is changing culture. Nearly all attempts to change how our culture impacts Earth's biosphere use technology, market reforms, and legislation. Those things don't change culture.

Northwell Health is deliberately changing their culture around food. They've come a long way, but can still go a long way. Changing culture means resistance, including from the people it would help. It's hard and takes a long time. In the case of Northwell, I hear that despite the challenges, nobody wants to go back.

We living in unsustainable cultures could benefit from learning what Northwell achieved.

This conversation was brief, but covered the important points, particularly the challenges of changing habits. Dave didn't do everything he intended, though I thought he succeeded more than he did. The goal of the Spodek Method isn't to make big changes, though some do, but to share and act on intrinsic motivation relevant to nature and the environment. Just accessing intrinsic motivation at all can be a challenge in a world where most messages on the environment are based in lecture and telling people what to do.

Yet we care about the environment. If we expect to be told what to or lectured at, we hold back from sharing. Dave seemed partly to hold back, but he also works in leadership so overcame the inhibition and shared.

He didn't do as much as he hoped, but the parts he did he enjoyed. If you're concerned about acting yourself, you might appreciate Dave's experience. Starting new habits or even just acting once or twice for the first time can be challenging. When done for intrinsic motivation, you'll feel meaning and want to continue. Dave also skipped some Dunkin' Donuts, which seems like a big success to me.

He ends considering taking on a bigger challenge affecting others. We'll see in a future episode if it connects.

Adam treats dependence and addiction in some ways different and unique than past guests who have covered addiction. One way is the business side. For example, early in this conversation, he talks about how people at companies that create products designed to addict, like cell phones, tablets, and the apps and games on them, don't allow their children to use them. Yet they gleefully reach trillion-dollar valuations based on making it difficult for children or anyone to stop using their products.

Is this pattern not outrageous? Adam reinforces about how widespread the patterns are.

The result is growth in addiction beyond anything before and people keep finding more ways to addict. People often feel isolated and helpless. Addiction wrecks your self-esteem. We miss that our culture supports it. Adam shares how they keep us coming back for things we don't even like.

Adam teaches at one of the world's top business schools. He doesn't oppose business, but he explores our culture's addiction problems. He elaborates on the problems, research, and possible solutions.

At the end, I ask him his thoughts about the viability of contracts and society when people can control others as predictably and effectively as by coercing through threat or violence. We as individuals are outmatched by corporations and institutions able to control people this effectively with big, long-term consequences.

I start by describing how podcast guest Carl Erik Fisher, author of bestseller The Urge, reviewed my upcoming book Sustainability Simplified as a subject matter expert on addiction. Carl mentioned how my book suffered from what Bruce describes as the demon drug myth. He pointed to Bruce's work as seminal, so I started reading it.

I'd heard of Rat Park and later remembered Johan Hari mentioning Bruce in his TED talk where he said "the opposite of addiction is community". I couldn't wait to talk to Bruce. Carl introduced us. We spoke. Bruce clarified the demon drug myth. I described how addiction and doof figure in my sustainability leadership work.

In our conversation, Bruce described how working with self-described junkies in the early 1950s led him to reinterpret the common wisdom "proved" by experiments that some chemicals addicted people, end of story. He then described how he created Rat Park, which showed a lot more nuance and alternative explanations. You can read about Rat Park on Bruce's page or this comic book version, but his description in our conversation is engaging and thorough.

Then he shares how people continue to stick with the old view of addiction and drugs. It's easy. It takes parents and others off the hook.

He describes new views of addiction. You won't see addiction the same after. If you want to stop polluting and depleting yourself and help people you know and communities you are a member of, this conversation will change how you view it forever. You'll approach it with more understanding, empathy, and compassion.

I started by sharing my experience giving after reading Peter's book The Life You Can Save. I confess I only read it after our first conversation, but loved it. I feared reading a book by an academic philosopher arguing a point would be dry and boring. Instead it led me to donate to causes. Then, even though I didn't donate for recognition or personal benefit, the organizations I donated to contacted me with gratitude, connected to me, and one even invited me to its annual dinner.

Then we talk more about flying, following up our last conversation. From Peter's perspective, I view flying too black-and-white, not considering someone's reason for flying or what benefit it might provide. I don't challenge that perspective. I'm just looking to learn from my guest. My book treats that perspective.

Then I share my new take on his drowning child analogy as it relates to sustainability.

Other topics too, but we close with our mutual appreciation for calm conversation and democracy, both lacking these days.