♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: dr. abdullah abdullah is here. he holds the title of chief executive of afghanistan. he was sent to post. afghan security forces are largely operated on their own after most u.s. troops were withdrawn. some units were remaining to advise and train. on monday, the militant group sees the city of kunduz. efforts to retake it failed despite government reinforces and support the nato airstrikes. it is the taliban's biggest military gain since 2001.

the group is also facing competition from the islamic a, which is challenging it in many parts of the country. the extent of the american presence in afghanistan after next year has yet to be decided. i'm pleased to have dr. abdullah back at this table. welcome. is it going from bad to worse? dr. abdullah: i wouldn't call it that. the recent developments -- it is an issue that should be addressed and hopefully will be. i believe that it is a temporary gain and the taliban. charlie: why is that happening? dr. abdullah: afghanistan security forces have shouldered all of the responsibility for security from previously 140,000 americans in an international plans.

that transition took place very quickly. and then the military security transition, the political transition, coincided, with the elections which was contentious. in the period between 2012 and 2014, taliban strategy was to survive and it was hoping that once the withdrawal completes itself, then they could come back in a big way. at the end of 2014, and the beginning of 2015, they looked for a final victory. in the past 12 months, they have made lots of efforts, lots of attempts. but they have failed. recently this has happened at , this moment the focus is to get it back and liberate the

people. how it happens, whether it was lack of coordination or something else, this needs to be made clear to the people. charlie: will afghan history look back at the time of the northern alliance and cia and special forces as the taliban will run out of afghanistan and into pakistan? that the effort to get them and to eliminate the taliban did not take place because america became distracted by the iraqi war? will that be a historic decision that will forever be part of afghan history? dr. abdullah: that will be a part of afghan history. at the same time, at that time and pakistan, the president was

ruling, and from one side he was acting as being in the front line of the war against terror. from the other side, he was the one who is providing sanctuary to the summa bin laden. charlie: i never understood why. they wanted to have someone who could play a role in the future of afghanistan? dr. abdullah: they did not believe that afghanistan would stand on its own feet. secondly, the true policy there has been unfortunately to use terrorism and extremism as a means of achieving former -- foreign policy objectives. taliban, they consider that an asset rather than a liability. that was also an important factor. within afghanistan, the policies of my colleagues, my former boss from the president, to divide in

-- to divide and rule and also to weaken the local indigenous forces. to do then an effort war or an effort on something else? dr. abdullah: a strong central government to consolidate his position and leading to him being weekend afterwards. because he thought al qaeda and taliban are gone and that it is time to go off to the internal situation and consolidate his position by weakening the indigenous forces. my believe at that time is that the indigenous, local forces should have transformed in the course of time, a transition, into the national army police. charlie: this is important to me, i'm interested in this grade so, you believe what he wanted to do was to weaken internal forces so it could strengthen himself and you believe it was

important to incorporate local forces and make the center stronger. dr. abdullah: also not to leave a vacuum in between. until we have a national army, but today we have a national army, we should not have left any vacuum. that vacuum was used by the taliban in order to get back. charlie: the circumstance allowed them an opportunity to get a foothold again. to build and build. dr. abdullah: if i may point to a part of the military strategy which was a lot of insurgents , against the taliban later on, everyone learned on the ground that smaller-scale attacks were especially effective based on the right intelligence.

than the largest operations. when this tactic was working, the former president turned against the united states and put pressure on the nato forces not to launch any operation. then came when he 14 in the news, around 2014. what we see today, what we are witnessing, today it is a compilation of quite a few factors which belong to the past. charlie: did his alleged corruption weaken the position against the taliban? dr. abdullah: corruption in the system, as well as not letting institutions be strengthened. and also election after election marred and so forth. all of these were practiced. charlie: houston did you know -- how soon did you know about the

debt of omar? because, he died a year or so before. dr. abdullah: a year or so. two years ago. our chief of intelligence said 2013. they came with the proposition that from such a date, april, 2013, -- charlie: 2013? dr. abdullah: we don't have any evidence that mullah omar is alive. we don't have evidence about his movements. no one has seen him. no one has heard him. no communication. nothing. of course, it was not possible for them to come up 100% proof that he was dead. but, the people that knew he was dead, it was a very small circle amongst the taliban.

charlie: they were issuing orders in his name when he was dead. charlie: they knew he was dead? dr. abdullah: absolutely. post-2001, omar spent all his time in pakistan and was in contact throughout. charlie: they had to gave him a century otherwise he would not have been able to stay there. dr. abdullah: yes, of course. you might have heard that there were a few rounds of negotiations with the taliban. in pakistan, authorities would say these people represent omar. we know how to get message to them and messages back, which was a sham. charlie: because he was dead? dr. abdullah: because he was dead and we thought we had been cheated.

also some members of taliban and senior members in taliban tanks, taliban leadership, thought they were cheated. that is why there is division amongst the taliban. charlie: is that division about whether to negotiate or not? do we assume that mullah omar was in favor of negotiating or not? dr. abdullah: he did not believe in negotiating settlement. he didn't. but the division's first. , why was it kept secret from the taliban? because, war was conducted in the eyes of a lot of taliban foot soldiers, he was the legitimate -- he was like the , king of all muslims, and in their own perception with a legitimate mandate. later on they learned their imam was already dead and negotiations were conducted when

asked who has authorized negotiations, they were told that it was mullah omar. then they learned that that was not true. charlie: what does this mean for the future of the taliban and and its political and military positioning, that he is no longer there in terms of his own , public acknowledgment? dr. abdullah: taliban, in their organization, will never be the same. because, there were different groups among some but all of , them had accepted mullah omar as the top leader. his orders were binding. not from the leader, but also religious, according to their belief, their perception of religion. and the fact that the new leadership role had been

challenged right from the beginning, it will develop self in the course of time. the current leadership is trying to solidify its position. these efforts are part of that. charlie: as you know, many people have argued that the united states' departure from iraq and not leaving a force there, not being able to negotiate with the prime minister that time somehow led to some of the problems they have today. that american troops have been a restraining force on maliki and somehow would have impeded the animosity between sunnis and shia's who supported, in the beginning, and helped isis become what it has become. is that risk in afghanistan, too?

dr. abdullah: rather than making it further complicated for myself to pass judgment on what happened in iraq, i would say it is important that the current number of troops are sustained. beyond 2016. charlie: both you and the president are at one on that. dr. abdullah: we are on that, -- also, the commanders on the ground, the generals that are helping us. charlie: what is the number of american troops? dr. abdullah: currently it is 9800. we would like at least 9800 to stay beyond 2016, because currently the decision is by the end of 2016 the number will be in the hundreds and it will be

kabul-centric. charlie: your argument is we need close to 10,000. dr. abdullah: at least the current number, which is 9800. charlie: will you get it? dr. abdullah: i hope. because, it is not just a call for self interest. we have been together, and you mention the americans have made sacrifices alongside the afghans in dealing with a common enemy. there have been a lot of things and lives have changed for millions of people. men, women, boys and girls, and life is better for those. at the same time, in order to consolidate those gains, we need

-- we don't expect 130,000 troops to be there, if i may be very open and candid. there will be elections in the united states next year and the future elected administration should not be left in a situation that will have to make an even much more difficult decision afterwards, but rather given a choice that the current level is there and then deal with it as the situation allows. charlie: you accept, don't accept, or don't want to comment about the departure of american troops from iraq? dr. abdullah: it was a factor.

but what happened there, it was , iraqi government that went against the president rather than the current administration. here you are talking about a willing partner which is committed to the common goal and it was honest about its challenges, as well as his opportunities. charlie: is your goal in negotiating peace with the taliban or something else? dr. abdullah: our goal is achieving peace in afghanistan. charlie: by negotiation? dr. abdullah: whenever there is an opportunity for negotiations, we have to seize it. we have proven that we are

determined in that regard. otherwise, protect our people and also protect ourselves from being used by the terrorists, which are not just threats to the afghan people, but to the whole of mankind and to peace and the stability and much wider world than just a territory called afghanistan. charlie: do you worry that isis may be able to unite radical jihadist groups under one flag? al qaeda, al nusra? dr. abdullah: they will not be able to do that. certainly there will be different branches and different names. they might try brutal tactics or through the plan which is infamous for making headways so

quickly. that will help them for a while, but they are not able to lead a global movement. charlie: why are they gaining ground in afghanistan? isis. the perception is they are gaining ground. they have a presence. dr. abdullah: in some parts, they do have a presence. partly it is the groups of taliban which have turned their allegiance towards isis. charlie: why would they do that? dr. abdullah: that is also due to internal divisions in the taliban ranks. at this stage, isis is not a significant threat in afghanistan. but isis is a significant threat worldwide and also in our region that we cannot take lightly.

charlie: and syria. dr. abdullah: and syria, and iran. the fact this has happened so quickly, this has created an appeal. charlie: especially from the young around the world, who come from everywhere. dr. abdullah: and to go from everywhere. charlie: right. what the you think of the russian president in -- russian presence in syria? dr. abdullah: russian presence in syria. i'm not sure that they will put soldiers on the ground. charlie: putin said off the record to me that he had no plans to do that. dr. abdullah: off the record and on the record, i believe it. charlie: you might assume is one of the reasons is afghanistan. afghanistan was a terrible lesson of history.

it has been the burial ground of a lot of people who try to conquer it, as you know better than anyone. dr. abdullah: partly, it is because of that. there are other constraints that they are having. troops on the ground will not help the situation. but, as a matter of pursuit of their own interest, they have chosen to support bashar al-assad, and i watched that in -- that interview with president putin in new york. they will continue that policy. charlie: bringing it back to you, one quick question about pakistan. you seem to suggest clearly the pakistanis and the leadership of pakistan knew that osama bin laden was there. they had to know. dr. abdullah: osama bin laden, absolutely. charlie: they all denied it.

even americans will say, they don't know if the highest officials, had to know. you are saying, get serious. dr. abdullah: he was in a military containment near a military compound in islamabad. -- in about a bod. if he knows the chief of al qaeda, or does he know about him being having a residence near a military containment. that creates questions. charlie: it does. so, they had to know? dr. abdullah: they had to know. charlie: what does that say about them? dr. abdullah: if there is one lesson from afghanistan or the misadventures of these terrorist

groups, that using terrorism as a means of achieving foreign policy does not work. it has not worked for any state. the reason i am so sure about it, first, it is a lesson from history, but second, these terrorist groups will turn against those states. groups which pakistan had created, now, are fighting against pakistan. they were crated for other purposes. but, the minute they find opportunity, they turn against the states. so, it is important for the state not to allow these extremists, radical, nonstate actors to use these opportunities for short-term gains, which look like gains,

but anyone in that position is in a losing position. charlie: you came to the u.n. and called on international partners to realize the gravity of the situation and use any effective means to support our aspirations for a genuine and durable confidence building process leading to talks leading taliban and other armed opposition groups. what has been the response? charlie: that was the call from me on behalf of the government of afghanistan. the countries -- there is more than one country that are willing to facilitate this. but, at the same time, we have asked them to be neutral. there are certain things that are important. first of all, the consistency in the messaging and coherence of

the messages given to the countries are important. talking about pakistan, afghanistan, and at unity government. people tried, after the formation of the unity government, with sincerity, in seriousness, to communicate together. that we are not the enemies of pakistan. we will not allow ourselves to be used against pakistan. and at the same time, we , understand that friendly relations, based on mutual respect and respect for territory and integrity for one another, is in the interest of all of us. there's a lot to gain from it. we ended up learning that person

that presented this, was sent to talk to us, was hopefully in this two years back. that was disappointing. charlie: you have to catch a plane to afghanistan. because of the situation there. i thank you for coming by. dr. abdullah: it is always a pleasure talking to you. charlie: abdullah abdullah from afghanistan. back in a moment. stay with us ♪ ♪

charlie: margrethe vestager is here. she is the european commissioner for competition, she was previously the danish minister of economy. the commission brought antitrust charges against google and the russian energy giant gazprom. the economist wrote amid constant reminders of the weakness from mediterranean migration to the endless greek saga, the spectator -- her show of strength is a reminder that brussels has bite. i am pleased to have her here. are you proving that brussels has bite? margrethe: i don't know, but this is a pleasure to be here. charlie: we like strong women at this table.

margrethe: europe, as a state, we build on the state of law, we build on the rule of law, and you can do find business in europe if you play by the book. charlie: google is not playing by the book? margrethe: we have this concern that this very successful company, very, very dominant extremely dominant in europe in , general search, is using this dominance to prevent themselves enabling markets, where it is , not under merit. we like competition very much. charlie: do you believe your stance and the stance of the eu is tougher, in general, than encz of the united states and its regular tory actions imposes against both its businesses and foreign businesses? you have a tougher attitude about competition? margrethe: it is too early for me to do that comparison.

there may be things on which we differ, but i think that in general, we have kind of the same approach. in a way we copy it. and u.s. antitrust competition way of thinking, it was invented 100 years ago and , we did it 60 or 70 years ago. charlie: listen to this quote, by challenging the practices of companies like google, the european unions competition commissioner has convinced many that she is a worthless corporate opponent, but they may have gotten that wrong. more than pearson, she may simply be danish. margrethe: [laughter] i don't know about that, but i we should be sort of -- i think very carefully about the responsibility that we had to citizens, and to keep markets open and fair and to enable a

level playing field for people to enter. to have a fair, fighting chance with new ideas and new product and more affordable isis. -- new affordable prices. in that, it is not about businesses. it is about keeping europe open for business. charlie: it seems to take a long time for these things to be resolved. margrethe: can this place undone? it has to do something with fundamental, it has to do with due process. with getting the fact right, enabling any business to defend itself. and not to rush to decisions. eventually our casework may have , to stand up in court. so, of course it should be , evenhanded, it should be impartial. we should do our best effort. that can take a lot of time. charlie: our european values different from american values

in western competition and the role of corporations? margrethe: no, i don't think so. charlie: where is the difference? margrethe: we have differences in the way we approach things and are markers are very different. in europe we have been building , up the single markets decade after decade, but we still have some national markets. it is different from here. a company can be very dominant in europe and not necessarily so dominant in a u.s. market. so, i think when we differ, it is much more reflection of different facts. because, we have actually and excellent corporation collection. the federal trade commission, and the department of justice, the work that they do. we work closely together when we have things in common.

charlie: why did you want this job, anyway? margrethe: i have been a legislator in different roles and i was beginning to think that we put all our political leadership into passing new legislation. without really sort of realizing that it takes maybe more political leadership to make it come true. to implement it. to make it work on ground. where people need to change their habits, the way he do things, in order to change the world that we live in. i really want to work for that. well, thatorcement, is making it work. charlie: have you given up on danish politics? margrethe: you know, sometimes i miss my colleagues. i miss my friends. so far, i have not gotten to the point where i miss danish politics.

charlie: but you would still like to be prime minister. margrethe: well, whatever people might think about that, i don't know. i do a job, and hopefully i do it well, and let's see what the future brings. charlie: explain to me the process. how does that work out? let's take google, since it is known to everybody here and everybody around the world. how do you go about making your decision with respect to google and the power of its search engine? margrethe: one of the things that comes to my desk is people that complain. who feel that this is not right things are not done by the book. , charlie: these are other companies. margrethe: yes, american companies or european companies. charlie: american companies, too? margrethe: yes. definitely. and then we start looking. if we find something, we will open a formal investigation. then we start gathering lots and lots of data. and then to interpret the fact,

do we think that we find evidence of foul play, that things are not as they are supposed to be? and, if we think that there is a case, then we write a statement of objection, we send it to you, and you can defend yourself. and then we do, as you should, with an open mind, read the defense that is coming up. charlie: has there been a major case where you wrote your fax -- your statement of facts, and using to them and they wrote back and explained what they did and made their case, and you said, you know what, you're absolutely right. come and talk to me. dear member a case like that? margrethe: my shift has just begun. i have been there for 11 months. sometimes you can take people's data and the way they see things on board. in other areas, you might feel different. i think that depends. we have very strong internal safeguards, second opinions, in

order to qualify the things we do before we would ever send out a statement of objection. but now we will see. , now we are diving in to the answers we have gotten, and starting to analyze them. charlie: do you believe you have an unfair reputation in the united states among technology companies? margrethe: i don't know. i think part of the reputation comes from the job. charlie: in other words, you have to be tough because that is the definition of your job? margrethe: i think so. charlie: to be vigilant. margrethe: to be consistent, to be evenhanded, to stay focused, because basically what we all do is to serve our citizens. charlie: what is the issue with gazprom? margrethe: the russian oil company doing great business in europe. charlie: much to the delight of european buyers. margrethe: selling a lot of gas.

and a number of countries, we are finding that they are using a very dominant position to charge very, very high prices. excessive prices. in that case, we have sent them a statement of objection and we have gotten their official response, but we also got their first draft on what could balance our concerns to find a solution. charlie: denmark is not part of the eurozone, nor is britain part of the eurozone. what is your analysis of the greek economic issue and all of the change of governments there has done to the possibilities and the future of the eurozone? margrethe: well, right now, that is on the table. if they make the move soon to be closer together, to be much more

committed in their economic policies, inc. when you have had a crisis like this and things have been at risk, torn apart, then you would want to move together. that is being debated as we speak. charlie: do you believe the crisis is still there, and the question of what will happen to greece is still to be determined, or do you believe that the most recent agreements and most recent elections make a difference? margrethe: i think now there is a chance that things can move forward in a constructive way. both with the agreement made over the summer, and the past election. of course, nothing is certain, but i think there are better chances then there were months ago when greece made headlines in every newspaper around the world. charlie: what is your notion of

greece/europe today? is that a viable idea today? margrethe: you don't choose your crisis. what you choose is whether you will take responsibility. as i have experienced it, also first-hand, almost a decade, every time that question were asked, it was yes, we will take responsibility. not only do you have strong institutions in the parliament and council and commission and court, you also have people who want to make europe a place of not only of an innovative dynamic, but also a place where people can pursue their dreams. it is a very basic vision, i know that. but for your children to get an education, for yourself to have an interesting job to provide

your family, there is this idea about the filling your dreams. charlie: i can't let this opportunity go without talking about the television series "borgen." lots of americans have watched it. do you see yourself in it? margrethe: yes. some i do. , my husband is a teacher. my party was a small one. actually i know some people , would say it is just fiction, but actually, i think it is a pretty accurate portrait of ladies politics. charlie: in what way? margrethe: in the way that you see people talking together, having to come together, having to find compromise, and for women to play a strong role. fact, it is said that you are the inspiration for the prime minister. margrethe: yes, i -- charlie: you can see that. you recognize that. margrethe: but you never really know.

charlie: are you flattered if it is true? margrethe: yes, i am. very much. but most of all, i admire the , people have done the series. around, so many people, the globe, actually, have enjoyed it. and hopefully gotten a peek into this scandinavian environment. charlie: thank you for coming. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: dr. peter whybrow is here. he is the director of the seminal institute of neuroscience and behavior of ucla. his books include "a mood apart." his latest is "the well-tuned brain." examines how and why the human brain is often out of sync with the world around us. i am pleased to have you here. welcome. did 9/11 make you think of the themes? dr. whybrow it was mainly the breakdown in 2008. i wonder why did that happen? charlie: the financial crisis. >> how can a country believe it will live on debt forever? i think that brought me to the point where i thought if we use neuroscience as we can, what we know about behavior, we begin to

direct our public policy in a different way. charlie: how do we do that? dr. whybrow: many of the plagues we have now, obesity, debt, lack of trust, all of those things, they have a common core, and the common core is human behavior, the way in which relate to each other. if you peel it back, which i do in the first part of the book, and asked the question who we , really are, we are short-term discounters. we love the immediacy. we love the reward. and then, we are also habit-driven. if you put those two things together, you have a habit and a reward systems based on short term. and then you type into the circumstance that we have built ourselves, especially in america but in the western world in , general, you come up with this situation where we are driving ourselves to our worst -- it is a perfect storm. charlie: why did we develop this

passion for instant gratification? simply because it was there? dr. whybrow: it was there. that is the old brain. that is the ancient brain. inadvertently, we have stumbled into this situation where we are now driving that part. the frontal cortex, which is rather primitive compared to the ancient, 700 million year old driver in the seat, we are completely out of focus. the rider has lost control of the horse, if you will. charlie: how do we fix this? dr. whybrow: i think we can do it in various ways, but first by knowing ourselves, which is what i talk about in the first part of the book. the way we make choices is pretty well known, and the way in which we combine a motion and reason in making those choices. but, when you have a society

that actually is driving, principally, the market society, is driving immediate gratification and enabling people to use debt to make that gratification real, suddenly you end up with a circumstance where you can't get away from the drive. once we begin to realize that, we will begin to ask ourselves, why do we have children advertised to in ways that drive them particularly towards the brand systems? most children can identify a couple of hundred different brands by the age of three. they probably don't know what is going on in the garden. so i think that the issue , becomes one of education and how you develop trust. we put all sorts of interesting things that we could do, in terms of our social policy, and we don't do it. charlie: you say there is a mismatch between neurologically

and how culture has developed. dr. whybrow: if we pay attention to human attachment, which is the core of what we do -- the need of attachment. your program would not be the power it is if you were a robot, were it? charlie: it might be better. [laughter] dr. whybrow: no, no. we have invented the latest barbie doll. but you can get your child, and the barbie doll will have sympathy of the child falls down, etc. these are fascinating things. fascinating technologically. charlie: we are applying our minds to the wrong thing. dr. whybrow: yes, we are. especially in early childhood. education becomes distorted. charlie: talk about obesity. dr. whybrow: obesity is a very good example. because that is where we have , built immediate satisfaction in terms of the food that we get.

you would much rather eat something quickly and move on to do something next then you would rather sit over a meal. the fast food industry is fantastic. it has done so many things in terms of feeding us. but, it is also feeding us all sorts of stuff that if you don't -- if you combine with no exercise 50% of the population , does not exercise at all. they do not get out of the chair to turn on the television set. you end up with growing obesity, which changes the way in which behaviors manifest. perfect example. if you are very busy and you eat a lot, there is a high correlation between how much you sleep and how much you weigh. the less you sleep, the more you way. it is counterintuitive, but it is true. this is true for children. charlie: some people, thin

people, i know they sleep more. dr. whybrow: you should be trying to sleep eight hours a night. where you get to that, i don't know. that eight hours a night is a good thing to be doing. charlie: i try to approach that simply by taking naps a day. i don't sleep eight hours in one -- dr. whybrow: that is a good thing to do. when you sleep, for reasons we don't entirely understand, is a very important knitting of the shakespeare's the general coil. the other thing about obesity is that in our frenzied lifestyle, we increase enormous numbers of stress hormones, which makes you fatter, too. charlie: the habit part is if we rely on instant gratification and that becomes a habit -- dr. whybrow: you put your finger on it. we all have habits. i crossed my arms. now we say, cross it the other

way. now i start fumbling. that is a habit. is aact is, that not only habit physically speaking, but it is a habit inside of your head. the way you relate to people is formed very early on. three-year-old child is forming literally millions of connection a week in terms of the way the brain's wiring up. those habits will drive us in a direction that we frame when we are young. charlie: i want to go to the financial crisis. what did you understand about that and the developments of that to understanding the themes that we are talking about? dr. whybrow: i think it was a surprise to everybody who was there. even the economists did not figure it out. we blames the bankers. we blame whoever we can. in fact, we forget to ask what , contribution did we make?

the debt that we have accumulated is extraordinary during that time and most of us , chelated it. not just the whole country, but every individual is being forced into the idea that you can have your television tomorrow morning because all you have to do is mortgage yourself for several years. you keep on mortgaging yourselves. charlie: prices never go down. dr. whybrow: exactly right. the individual is just as much responsible as the banker. bigger scale on the banker. much easier target. but we were all responsible. , the argument in here is let's be responsible and think about this. we have borrowed as much money and we are borrowing at the same rate between 2008 and now, as we were beforehand. almost exactly the same. i read an op-ed in the "wall street journal" about that. just a few weeks ago. charlie: i am obsessed by the brain. dr. whybrow: thank goodness. you have done wonderful

programs. charlie: what is the most exciting frontier? as you look at all the things that are going on? dr. whybrow: i think it is genetics. it has been there for a while, but now we are able to take genetics and look at the vulnerability and asked the question, how does that interplay with the environment in a way that creates these synergies? charlie: didn't someone when the nobel prize understanding how to edit -- dr. whybrow: yes. the way that we have the have the technology which is a way of dissecting the gene and figuring out what the machinery is doing, that is extraordinary. that is going to make a huge difference in the way we understand the way it unfolds, and also normal behaviors. charlie: it is getting extraordinary, and you wonder how far you can go as we deeply understand the brain, how

central it is to everything else. where this is going to take us in terms of the future, and how it will affect the kind of society when we prolong life longer and longer. does that presents new problems? does that present new challenges? does that present new opportunities? dr. whybrow: i think it does all of those, but i like to focus on the opportunities. it is lots easier to hang drapes then look to the future. looking to the future, i think that once we do understand the technologies, but we don't forget what human beings have learned from each other, because society although we can , understand the vulnerable in genetics and those who are exceptional it is the general , society interaction which creates the society itself. the culture is embedded in the

things we are doing right now. we lose the face of that. we think, good god, we have all the environmental problems. technology is going to fix it. i don't think so. i think what will fix it is talking to each other about how we can work together. charlie: how we can harness technology. dr. whybrow: exactly. charlie: you do look at it and you ask yourself some very human questions. what impact is there with the obsession of social media and smartphones doing to the brain over the long run, and second, that the human level of contact? someone would argue that there is more contact because it is so instant. you can tweet and tweet and be with your friends all the time. you can gather more easily. you can do all these things. others say, what is it doing to brain chemistry?

dr. whybrow: it is small bandwidth. as i'm sitting here watching you and watching you watch me, i am looking at your face -- charlie: and i'm focused totally on you and what you say. dr. whybrow: and i can take an enormous amount of bandwidth from that. to use the technical term. whereas when i'm tweeting, i , don't get that bandwidth from you and i don't understand how you feel about things and nor do you understand my nuances. you end up with a much more primitive, a more scaled-back early, a caricature. charlie: pleasure to have you. dr. whybrow: good to see you again. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

anchor this is "trending business." live in singapore and mumbai. here is a look at what we are watching. sliding stocks. bal pulldown led by japan. singapore eases as the country avoids a recession. the dollar may fall further after today. and a warning for wall street. orchid volatility means risk is

on the up. jamie dimon says it is a challenging environment. further ahtag without day of holiday in jakarta. the rest of the region doing one thing. >> that is headed it down. we are looking at a second rate of decline. this is where we are at the moment. a second day of 1% declines. toward session lows. asia, extending the loss across global markets.