Tier 2 Tickets available now!
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn Hay 2024. Bringing together physicists with Nobel laureats, philosophers with leading campaigners, we seek to uncover new ways of seeing and challenge the status quos of knowledge.
Explore a first taste of our panels and debates below...
Slavoj Zizek & Peter Singer
From the time of Socrates, we have seen morality as distinctly human, driven by human desires and goals. But many now argue that this human focus for morality is misguided and leaves the natural world in peril. In valuing human well-being, we have ransacked the earth for resources, eradicated and exploited other species, and taken insufficient care of our home, the Earth. We are even planning to do the same to other nearby planets. It is not sufficient - they argue - for us to protect nature for our benefit, instead nature needs to be preserved for its own sake.
Do we need to re-think morality to find a new framework that no longer places humans at the centre? What should take their place: nature, sentient beings or something else? And, how are we to assess their well-being independently of our human perspective? Or is the notion that we can escape human goals and desires itself deluded, risking a return to an age where humans are sacrificed to the gods of the natural world?
Daniel Dennett, Simon Baron-Cohen & Subrena Smith
Most of us see human behaviour, like the rest of the animal kingdom, as driven by evolutionary drives to survive and reproduce. Evolutionary psychology has taken this one stage further with claims that "killing is fundamentally in our nature", and seeing human behaviours such as violence, social hierarchy, and sexual promiscuity as a product of evolutionary drives. But might this be a misleading and dangerous approach? Murder rates have fallen seventy-fold since the Middle Ages, and across the globe birth rates are a fraction of what they were a hundred years ago. Fathers are now actively involved in child care and we've radically changed our outlook on social issues like gender identity, suggesting that ideas and culture drive behaviour rather than evolution.
Should we conclude that evolutionary psychology is a blind alley with no predictive power? Are we capable of overcoming behavioural traits and therefore wholly responsible for our actions? Or is evolution an inescapable force and behavioural change a result of altered circumstances while our core nature remains identical?
For centuries we imagined that language was transparent. The 20th century changed all that. Philosophy, with the so-called linguistic turn, came to see language as central to our understanding of reality and set out to make it precise. But a hundred years on, the project is widely seen to have run aground. Critics argue that the danger now is that, because the problems of language and the world are so intractable, we have imagined they can be ignored. For how can we make sense of widely held metaphysical claims, such as the existence of parallel universes, or that we are all living in a simulation, or everything is consciousness, if we don't understand what our words mean and how, or whether, they describe reality?
Should we return to the positivist notion that all general claims about the nature of reality are empty theorising and should be abandoned? Can we find an alternative account of language that will enable us to make sense of such theories? Or was the linguistic turn an error and is it now time to return to the common sense notion that language is transparent and all can be said?
'Rewards are the means of all government' proclaimed US President John Adams. A principle it would seem we have adopted in most areas of our lives, from the gold stars and prizes we give to our children and the incentives applied at work, to religious tales of paradise after death. But there is evidence of an underlying danger with this approach. Studies now show rewards can damage wellbeing. Psychologists have found they foster dependence and undermine our internal sense of control. While neuroscientists have shown those more prone to seeking reward have a 70% higher risk of addiction, with addictive behaviour now present in almost 50% of the U.S. population.
Should we seek to wean ourselves off reward and instead learn to be content with experiencing the present for its own sake? Might it be time to adopt an Aristotelian or Stoic framework where action and virtue are seen as their own ends, rather than as a means to future benefit? Or is the current culture of reward in personal and professional settings not only hugely beneficial to our everyday lives but a much more effective means of social intervention than the punishment regimes of the past?
In the closing decades of the last century, many were critical of American global dominance. But twenty years on America's relative decline has ushered in a new multipolar era that many contend is profoundly more dangerous. We have an unpredictable conflict in Europe larger than anything since World War II and international tension greater than at any point since the height of the Cold War. Meanwhile from the Middle East to the South China Sea, a host of regional conflicts have the potential to spiral out of control, and the new world order looks increasingly precarious.
Can we navigate to safety through international cooperation and treaties? Do we need to align in power blocks to provide overall defence, or is it safer to remain independent providing less of a threat to others? Or is the only solution for one nation or alliance to once again become globally dominant?
Many identify themselves with their inner voice - the silent voice in our heads we can use to think, plan and ponder. But from Lacan to Nietzsche many have warned this inner voice is not ourselves, nor is it innocent or harmless. Studies from Durham University and Trinity College Dublin link the inner voice with increased anxiety. While others show those that take their own lives are often tortured by a subliminal voice. Furthermore, research at Imperial, and the University of Michigan found evidence that when our inner voice is reduced mental health improves.
Should we conclude the inner voice is not the real me, and its voice should be treated with caution? Should we seek to quieten the inner voice using techniques like psychotherapy, and meditation, and would doing so help combat the mental health crisis? Or did we evolve an inner voice for a reason, and should we see it as our conscience, a problem-solving tool and as a guide in our lives?
Defenders of the free market argue that competition drives down prices and benefits all. Since 1990 in China alone nearly a billion have been lifted out of poverty and average income has increased dramatically. But competition and free markets can also lead to dangerous monopolies, and higher prices. As entrepreneurial gurus like Peter Thiel advise 'if you're starting a company, you always want to aim for monopoly'. Critics argue that unconstrained capitalism allows companies to cement an initial advantage by buying competitors, and using their scale to dominate the market. They claim the largest companies have hijacked capitalism and gained success not by competition but by acting like feudal overlords.
Should we conclude that free market capitalism inexorably leads to monopoly if it is not constrained? Do we urgently need to break up or rest control from the corporate giants that dominate the markets? Or can we relax, confident that in time capitalism and market forces will overturn the current overlords?
We have the impression that science unravels the mysteries of the universe. But there is a deep puzzle. With every mystery solved, a new mystery emerges. The Big Bang offered an explanation for the expanding universe but led to the mystery of how it came about. Quantum mechanics accounted for the strange behaviour of subatomic particles, but led to the puzzle of its conflict with general relativity. Dark energy made sense of an accelerating universe but led to the mystery of why we have no evidence for it. Is there a danger that we are making a fundamental mistake in imagining science can eradicate mystery, and do we need to reinterpret our theories as a consequence?
Do we need to abandon the idea that science is providing a final account of reality, and instead see it as offering powerful new ways to intervene in the world? Is all that matters that the theory works and enables us to predict what will happen, and should we not require the theories to eradicate mystery? Or is the ability to overcome mystery essential to the effective operation of science and a core idea responsible for its success?
Creativity is often seen as a uniquely human quality. But with generative AI competing with and rivalling human skills, is this core facet of humanity under threat? As machines demonstrate an increasingly sophisticated ability to generate art, music, and literature, the once-sacred notion of human exclusivity in creativity is being questioned. 75% incorrectly identify AI artworks as man-made, while creatives globally are fearful of cuts to earnings and jobs as they face off with the new technology.
Do we have to accept that there is nothing special about the originality of humans, and creativity once so prized is a skill machines can also master? Do we need to reassess what it means to be human and with it the future of innovation, and invention? Or are the skills and qualities of generative AI overhyped and in fact no more than the dumb and repetitive combination of insights initiated by humans?
For centuries we imagined that language was transparent. The 20th century changed all that. Philosophy, with the so-called linguistic turn, came to see language as central to our understanding of reality and set out to make it precise. But a hundred years on, the project is widely seen to have run aground. Critics argue that the danger now is that, because the problems of language and the world are so intractable, we have imagined they can be ignored. For how can we make sense of widely held metaphysical claims, such as the existence of parallel universes, or that we are all living in a simulation, or everything is consciousness, if we don't understand what our words mean and how, or whether, they describe reality?
Should we return to the positivist notion that all general claims about the nature of reality are empty theorising and should be abandoned? Can we find an alternative account of language that will enable us to make sense of such theories? Or was the linguistic turn an error and is it now time to return to the common sense notion that language is transparent and all can be said?
Journey to Other Dimensions
Most of us take it for granted that there are three dimensions, perhaps four if we count time. But for over 200 years, mathematicians and scientists have proposed further dimensions. In some standard versions of contemporary physics eleven dimensions are now proposed. But might the notion of additional dimensions be an empty idea that derails physics? Critics like Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman argued that proponents of extra dimensions "cook up explanations" for what we can't observe. And from Kaluza-Klein particles to microscopic black holes, CERN researchers admit that no empirical evidence for extra dimensions has ever been, and more importantly perhaps could ever be, discovered.
Should we see reject talk of higher dimensions as speculative fantasy, good for sci-fi movies perhaps but not for scientific theories of the universe? Would we be better off seeing extra dimensions as a mathematical tool rather than a description of reality? Or might our mathematical hypotheses of multiple dimensions in fact describe the essential character of the world?
There can be little doubt, judging from wall-to-wall media coverage, that we assume elections profoundly affect our lives. But there's a risk they have far less impact than we imagine. A recent wide-ranging study of Western governments over the last thirty years remarkably showed no relation between the ideological outlook of citizens and actual social policy. Moreover critics from the right and left argue that it is unelected officials and giant corporations that primarily determine policy whoever is elected. Meanwhile, long-standing political challenges like social care and inequality remain unaddressed for decades despite changing governments.
Should we conclude that only rarely do leaders, parties and government make a significant difference to core policy? Are elections largely about the show of democracy rather than the actuality? Could and should we change this state of affairs and if so how? Or is the belief that elections are important essential to democratic nation-states?
The classic picture of success for much of the last century has been a detached suburban house, 2.4 kids, and a shiny car. But is there a danger this dream of domestic bliss is out of touch with the realities of human psychology, economics and our evolutionary roots? For much of human history, we lived in extended groups of 20 or more. In a family of four, if one relationship fails, the whole unit is at risk. Unsurprising perhaps that 1 in 5 adults now say they always or often feel lonely. With challenges in child and elderly care and a global housing crisis projected to affect 1.6 billion people by 2025, critics argue the isolated nuclear household has to go.
Is it time to abandon the ‘picket fence dream’ as an unnatural, uneconomical and unsustainable way of living? Should we seek to adopt a radical new model of the home which embraces co-living and shared domestic labour? Or this an elitist pipe-dream that ignores the realities of everyday life and the pleasure individuals and families get from living in their own home?
“Unexpressed emotions never die... but are buried alive and come forth later in uglier ways” claimed Sigmund Freud. Contemporary culture has gone a step further with the assumption that expressing feelings is important for mental well-being. We praise the sharing of mental health struggles, encourage men to express their emotional troubles, and uphold journaling as a valuable daily routine. But there's a problem. A recent study by Cambridge scientists showed that people trained to suppress negative thoughts, rather than unpack them, felt better and improved their wellbeing. Those with mental health issues benefitted the most. Meanwhile with millions seeking therapy, over half say they receive little or no benefit.
Might we all, and therapists in particular, be making a fundamental mistake assuming the expression of fears and concerns is beneficial? Can we improve wellbeing and address the mental health crisis with the suppression of negative thoughts and feelings? Or would this re-embed the stigma surrounding mental health and reverse hard-won progress?
Our narratives enable us to make sense of the world. From setting the scene and providing a means to understand what is happening, to placing ourselves at the centre of our own life's story, narratives help structure our goals and our lives. But there is a danger that rather than helping us understand the world, narratives can hide reality from us providing delusional states of mind in its place. From witch hunts to cults, from war propaganda to religious honour killings, people are prepared to kill and die for stories they believe in, that others regard as false illusions.
Should we recognise that our narratives are the product of our imagination and we are as much trapped by them as we are dependent on them? Can we escape the limitation of our own narratives to see the world as it is, and if so how? Or is it time to re-evaluate our use of narrative forms, acknowledge their limits, and open ourselves up to new possibilities?
As the world's largest democracy India is often seen as the West's obvious ally against a resurgent and potentially threatening China. But might there be a risk that India is not the stalwart ally the West has assumed? Question marks have been raised about India's attachment to freedom and democracy. In the last 20 years falling from 27th to 108th in democracy rankings and to 161st out of 180 in press freedom. And in foreign policy India is not clearly on the West's side. Ignoring sanctions on Russia, India is the third largest buyer of Russian oil, and in 2017 joined Russia and China in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Where is India going and how will it shape us and the rest of the world? Is it time to recognise that Modi's India, with the largest population in the world and the fastest growth, has its own agenda independent of the West and is this part of a new world order in which the West is but one player alongside others that have every sign of becoming more powerful? Or is the danger overdone and India's history and culture will in the long term bind it to Western values and goals?
'If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write' declared Martin Luther King. For writing is central to our culture and seen as the vehicle of precision and accuracy. Theories, contracts, and treaties all require to be written to be taken seriously. But there is a hidden danger in our dependence on writing, for it can give the illusion of precision and truth where there is none. From Wittgenstein to Derrida, philosophers have argued that precise meaning is elusive, as legal disputes over contracts and the difficulty in replicating experiments from written papers testify. Increasingly we interact through text, but as many discover it can frequently derail rather than enhance communication.
Have we mistaken written text for the truth when it is often a reach for control, an attempt to impose your story on others? Would we communicate better if we spent less time framing emails and texts and more time talking? Are we losing the fluid, ambiguous, potential of speech undermining meaning and diminishing our reality? Or are we right to be dazzled by the timeless quality of writing and its capacity to change the world?
We think women can have it all: a career and contributing to the economy along with children and the rewards of raising a family. But critics argue there is a danger that this is impossible in the current social framework. Lifetime earnings for graduate women are still only slightly more than half that of men in both the US and UK. While globally women carry out 75% of domestic labour and over a quarter of women are unable to have a career due to family commitments.
To address these issues do we need to make it possible for women to have equivalent lifetime earnings to men while also having and rearing families? Do we need a mechanism to enable payment for all currently unpaid work? Or is this a fanciful pipe dream and 'having it all' an illusion, and we all must make a choice in the way we balance the satisfactions and rewards of career and personal life?
A UK First. Back To Big Thinking
The Guardian
Press
