Book Earlybird Tickets Now
We have always sought a map to place where we are in the world. Not just on earth but in the heavens as well. For thousands of years Aristotle and Ptolemy's Earth-centred model dominated. It was displaced by Copernicus and the Sun-centred solar system we all take for granted. And today many cosmologists believe we can capture a picture of the universe itself. But critics argue such a map is impossible. From Earth, the Sun appears to move around us, yet from the perspective of the solar system, the galaxy, and the cosmic microwave background, each cosmic scale offers a different view of motion and structure. Some imagined the microwave background would provide a universal rest frame, but recent observations reveal unevenness, reminding us that we have no final vantage point from which to view the universe.
Is the idea of an objective and universal map of the cosmos illusory? Should we accept that we can give no account of where we are in the universe? Or might we one day map the universe as it truly is, and what might it in principle look like?
Gutenberg’s printing press transformed the world. The surge in literacy and the democratization of knowledge helped ignite the Enlightenment. 500 years later the internet is initiating a new transformation. Zuckerberg claims his digital networks have connected billions and made information more accessible than ever before. But critics claim that beneath this triumph of access lies a crisis of thought. Reading is in freefall: fewer young people enjoy reading today than at any point in the past twenty years, and OECD data show literacy stagnating across the developed world. Some argue we are witnessing a reversal of the Enlightenment itself with shorter attention spans and less ability to handle complex ideas.
If the literate mind shaped the modern world, what kind of world will the post-literate mind create? Are the rise of digital media and the decline of literacy dangerous trends that threaten our politics, culture, and thought itself? Or should we celebrate the internet as a new and radical extension of Gutenberg's dream of democratizing the production and distribution of knowledge?
"In the 21st century, we are defined not by our borders, but by our bonds," said President Obama. For decades in response to an increasingly global economy, the direction of travel had been the softening of borders and a suspicion of nationalism. But times have changed. Across the western world support for populist parties has mounted along with calls for tighter borders, defence of national identities, and an end to immigration. And across the political spectrum the rhetoric has followed. Globalists who had once defended an end to borders now come under attack as defenders of an educated elite.
Is nationalism and national identity necessary to protect the lives and living standards of the average working person, and are open borders and global travel the goal and privilege of the elite? Or is nationalism always a vehicle for intolerance, and the resort of demagogues and tyrants? And as national identities become more precisely drawn how are we to avoid increasing conflict not only between nations but within them?
“Look deep into nature, and you will understand everything better,” claimed Albert Einstein. And we naturally expect scientific investigation into nature to reveal a comprehensible universe. Yet the more modern physics develops, the less it seems to make sense. Relativity tells us that the passing of time is an illusion; quantum mechanics that observation creates reality and effects can precede causes. While string theorists claim we inhabit a universe of 26 hidden dimensions. Physicists admit they can ''calculate but not visualise'' with little agreement on what their own theories mean.
Is our inability to make our physical theories intelligible a challenge to our everyday understanding of the world, or a challenge to contemporary physics? Should we treat the theories as mathematical models and give up on them as descriptions of reality? Or could it be that theoretical physics can capture in mathematics a truth about the universe that is beyond our understanding?
Lyotard called the end to grand narratives, the end to the possibility of a single overall account of the human condition, be it religion, Marxism, liberal democracy, or the Enlightenment. He went on to argue that "grand narratives have always been in conflict with science". But increasingly critics argue science has given rise to its own grand narratives, with uncanny similarities to those it displaced. The sense of mystery and awe implicit in many religions now finds its parallel in the ineffable vastness of the universe. The Marxist unfolding of history has echoes in the unavoidable consequence of the initial conditions in Einsteinian physics. While the Genesis story has direct parallels with the Big Bang, a theory first put forward by a Catholic priest.
Rather than replacing grand narratives, have we just conjured up new versions? Is there a danger that the scientific narratives of today carry the same risks as the ideologies of the past? At root, why are we attached to these tales and could we even in principle get rid of them?
We imagine ourselves as the initiators of ideas. Creativity and innovation take place in individual minds. Yet research from biology to psychology—from Richard Dawkins’ meme theory to Carl Jung’s archetypes—proposes instead that we act as hosts for ideas rather than creating them ourselves. Psychologists from Washington University describe ideas as spreading like “social contagions"; once shared through enough of a network, they reinforce themselves, outpacing individual choice. Political ideologies, viral memes, and mass protests demonstrate this dynamic. While philosophers such as Wittgenstein have argued that language is inherently social, suggesting that ideas are impossible in the minds of isolated individuals.
Is it a mistake to see individuals as the origin of ideas and creativity, and if so what are the consequences for how we think about freedom and politics? Can individuals, from Napoleon to Trump, Darwin to Einstein, change history, or are they merely conduits for cultural movements that would happen with or without them? And if we are vehicles for ideas, how should we respond when the ones that possess us become destructive?
We believed that freedom would do the work of equality, that once women could make their own choices, the rest would take care of itself. But studies show that the greater the gender-equality in a country, the more likely women are to choose traditionally gendered paths — prioritising family, part-time work, or careers in care and education. Nordic countries, for example, celebrated for gender equality, have some of the lowest proportions of women in leadership. At the same time, freedom has come with a cost. Women pursuing traditional roles are shamed for betraying feminist ideals. And when women pursue work success, 87% report being penalised and undermined.
Should we recognise that freedom isn't enough to ensure equality and further intervention is required? Are women's choices revealing their true preferences? Or is the core issue that we don't give sufficient status and financial reward to traditionally female gendered roles?
When Fukuyama famously declared “the end of history,” it summed up his view that liberal economics had won the battle against socialism and would remain the dominant economic framework for all time to come. The success of Chinese state capitalism has been an obvious challenge to the claim. But now from Trump to Le Pen, Reform to the AfD, there is within the West a challenge to traditional liberal economics that comes not from socialism but from populist economic nationalism. It takes issue with central elements of liberal economics, arguing against free trade and in favour of tariffs and state intervention, while at the same time proposing tax cuts. Economic history, it would seem, isn't over yet.
Are we seeing the emergence of a new and credible economic theory in support of populist nationalism? Or is this no more than a combination of popular policies that makes no economic sense? More fundamentally, is this evidence that liberal economics is not a coherent economic theory in the first place and that a grand overall economic theory is neither necessary nor possible?
A UK First. Back To Big Thinking
The Guardian
Press
