Debates
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn Hay 2025. Explore a first taste of our panels and debates below.
First speakers and debates released!
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn Hay 2025. Explore a first taste of our panels and debates below.
For perception and free will to be possible, the self must be separate from the world. As Kant famously argued, we cannot perceive something unless we can differentiate ourselves from it and we cannot have free will unless we are distinct from the thing we are acting upon. And yet, are we not obviously part of the world? We come out of the world and live within it. The relationship between the self and the world is radically unknown. Materialists claim there is only the world, but they find no place for consciousness or the self anywhere in it. Idealists claim the self is all there is, but then it is the world that goes missing. While dualists claim both the self and the world exist, but how they link remains a mystery.
Should we see the self as part of the world, and therefore give up on the perception of reality and free will as illusory? Should we see the self as separate from the world, and accept that consciousness will never be explained by materialism? Or will the relationship between the self and the world forever remain a mystery?
Across the world women are voting significantly differently from men. Until the recent US election it seemed this was an increasing trend. But while the pattern was continued it was less evident and lower than predicted. It is unknown whether the male/female voting gap has peaked or whether the US election was an outlier in a long term upward trend. In all countries women are more left wing and men more right wing. In some cases the gap is large. In S.Korea 2022 elections there was a 30% vote difference. Surveys of opinion in Germany and across much of Europe have a similar gap in young women. But in the 2024 US election, more young female voters voted for Trump than in the last election, and the male/female voting gap for young women was just 2%.
Should we see the gender divide as an important, seismic and long term shift in politics? Is it the reason that traditionally left leaning young men are for the first time voting with the right? Or is the voting gender divide a temporary phenomenon that is already starting to close?
"The age of the universe is one of the best-known numbers in all of cosmology” claim leading physicists. 13.7 billion years is the standard answer. And our most cherished theories: the Big Bang, Dark Matter and cosmic inflation all operate within this age and assume a finite beginning. But recent evidence from the James Webb Telescope has led some to question the age of the universe or even if it has an age at all. Moreover, critics argue Einstein’s core idea that time isn't ‘universal’ means assigning a single “age” to the universe is flawed.
Does the age of the universe represent a crisis in cosmology and would an ageless universe upend many of our current cosmological models? Or can we overcome these challenges and determine the age of the universe once and for all? More radically could we abandon the attempt to find a single answer and accept that different cosmological theories have different answers each of which might have value in their particular sphere?
From Taylor Swift to Donald Trump, we take it for granted that the image presented to the world hides a true self underneath. But it is unknown if there is such a thing as a true self at all. ""The world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”, was Shakespeare's famous insight. And many argue his renowned phrase is more than a metaphor. We are constantly changing, with an array of masks and identities, who we choose to be and who we are.
Should we see the idea of a true self as an illusion and accept that there is only performance? Are we more like works of fiction than real-life people? Or is giving up on the true self a profound challenge to beliefs we hold dear, such as sincerity, responsibility, truth and lies?
From the freedom from tyranny, and poverty to the right to free speech, we assume that freedom is always desirable. But critics argue that the consequences of freedom are less obviously desirable than we imagine and frequently unknown. Kafka wrote "It is often better to be in chains than to be free” and Sartre, that "we're condemned to be free" since we are responsible for everything we do. And in wealthier countries where citizens are freer from the hunt for basic necessities like food, water, and housing, studies show depression and anxiety to be more prevalent, not less.
Should we recognise that far from being a universal good, freedom is a double edged sword? Is the goal or being ultimately free impossible since there are always constraints to our actions and our beliefs are constrained by experience, culture and language? Or is the pursuit of freedom essential, and should we see attacks on freedom as the first step toward tyranny?
We want to be able to identify political facts from political lies. But, it is becoming increasingly unknown how to tell the difference. Both sides in the last US election regarded the claims of the opposition as lies. According to Gallup research, 69% of Americans no longer trust mainstream media and 85% are worried about misinformation online. But the problem goes deeper. It is not clear what misinformation is and how it is substantiated, since one side's facts are the other side's lies. The very label 'misinformation' is sometimes itself uncovered as misinformation. Similarly fact-checkers can themselves be a vehicle for a predetermined point of view.
Should we stop seeing politicians as liars and accept that rhetoric and propaganda will always be a part of democracy? Alternatively should we double down on removing bias, and demand that truth be central to politics? Or should we conclude that objective truth is an impossible standard to reach, and accept that there are alternative, radically differing perspectives that are capable of being held as true?
Donald Trump has said if the American dollar loses its global dominance this would be "equivalent to losing a war". And yet, the future of the dollar now appears uncertain; America might indeed be losing. Central bank data shows nations including China have been buying gold in record numbers and have decreased the amount of dollars they hold by 7%, signalling a possible move away from the dollar as the global reserve currency. While American sanctions on Russia, intended to weaken the Russian economy, have resulted in cementing Russia's move away from the dollar and into China's yuan as their main foreign currency. All the while, the Russian economy is doing fine, the IMF expecting it to grow 3.6% this year, and unemployment at record lows.
Is the reign of the dollar over, and if so, might this be a fatal blow to American economic dominance? Would it spell the end also of America's position as the leading global power, and increase military tensions across he world? Or is the dollar here to stay and reports of its decline exaggerated?
The 2024 Nobel Prizes for physics and chemistry were both won for AI related science, leading some to claim that AI will soon be making novel scientific discoveries on its own. Start-ups are already attempting to create 'The AI Scientist', which will one day 'fully automate scientific discovery'. And researchers at Imperial College argue AI will "usher in a new age of discovery to rival the golden age of the scientific method". But critics argue the scientific capability of AI remains unknown. Many argue that whilst it could speed up scientific discovery, it will never be able to identify scientific problems to focus on and initiate solutions.
Should we accept that AI will never be able to make novel scientific discoveries, and see the idea that it could as marketing hype and a misunderstanding of how computers work and what they are capable of doing? Or are we about to enter a new golden age and uncover the mysteries of reality with the help of AI?
Flirting has been around since the dawn of time, and has played a key social and evolutionary role in helping us to test the compatibility of our partners. The very continuation of our species depends on how we flirt. But flirting has drastically changed since the digital revolution and dating apps - with unknown consequences. No longer do we lock eyes across a bar or meet people at work, instead we interact through a phone screen. With population growth set to halt by 2100, studies studies showing 74% of young women having less sex than ever before, and around 80% of people feeling “burnout” and “emotional fatigue” from dating online; the new era of flirting does not seem to be going well.
Should we be making a concerted effort to once again meet people in person, not only for the good of our own love lives but for the very continuation of the species? Is something irreplaceable lost when we use dating apps, such as the serendipity of a chance meeting or the energy exchange felt in the presence of a potential partner? Or must we embrace the new era of technology and accept thousands of years of flirting in person is over?
Europe’s answer to TED
Total Politics
Press