HowTheLightGetsIn London 2025 Tickets coming soon!
Debates are the beating heart of HowTheLightGetsIn.
Watch Nobel Laureates and influential philosophers face off, and best-selling authors and fiery commentators lock horns, in debates confronting the questions of our time.
In London we launch our new festival theme Navigating the Unknown. We'll chart a course through the universe, search for the meaning of life, and find peace in a period of conflict with the help of our era's most exciting minds!
We think we have a sense of the present epoch; after all we are currently living in it. But if once we saw ourselves at the edge of history pushing progress forward on all fronts, today many lack an overall account of the world and where we are going. As the French philosopher Lyotard said: “There has been a collapse of grand narratives and totalizing theories.” History has thrown us from the religious certainty of the pre-modern, to the belief in science and progress of the early and mid-twentieth century, to the postmodern undermining of the very possibility of objectivity and an overall account of the world.
Does the loss of grand narratives threaten our culture and our belief in ourselves? Can we find a new narrative, in the abandonment of metaphysical materialism or in a renewed belief in science? Or can we break free of the need for a grand narrative and live fearlessly in the face of the mystery of existence?
“The more quantum theory develops, the sillier it looks”, wrote Einstein in a letter in the 1920's. Since then quantum physics has been verified by experiment and been central to many of the scientific and technological advances of the last century. But the problem that troubled Einstein remains: quantum mechanics renders the universe fundamentally unknowable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle means that science is in principle unable to predict behaviour at a quantum level. He concluded: "Elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts".
Should we accept that quantum mechanics has made the universe unknowable? And if so, how should we proceed if the way the world is depends on our observations? Is science at play in a world of competing models none of which can ultimately describe the universe, or is Einstein's hunch right and can we uncover a theory that eliminates uncertainty and enables the correct description of the universe independent of any observer?
'Speak softly and carry a big stick' was Roosevelt's approach to global strategy. But the big stick didn't work according to plan in Iraq and Afghanistan. And speaking softly to Russia prior to the Ukraine invasion now looks to have been a terrible mistake. In a multi-polar world an effective foreign policy looks increasingly elusive and unknown. Against a backdrop of the highest number of violent conflicts since the second world war the Deputy Secretary of the UN claimed in 2022 that people's sense of security and safety is at an all time low in almost every country. In response military spending is rising across the world, with increasingly strident voices saying it is not rising fast enough.
Without a dominant global power, is there a strategy that can avoid a seemingly uncontrollable increase in military expenditure and conflict? In a world where military technology is so powerful, is it possible for individual countries to have their own independent foreign policies? Or is a new era of alliances to counter the growing threats the only way forward?
Explore the speakers!
Many have sought to divide the self into separate parts. From Aristotle's distinction between the rational and irrational self, to Freud's separation of the conscious from the unconscious mind, from Kahnemann's fast and slow self, to McGilchrist's selves of the left and right brain. But critics argue it makes no sense to see the self as divided. From Descartes to Sartre, many philosophers have concluded that to be conscious is to be consious of something and there can be no further self hiding within consciousness. After all, if there are two aspects of the self does it not require a third to oversee or combine them? Meanwhile neuroscience has been unable to identify a self at all let alone multiple selves.
Should we give up the idea of distinct selves as simply incoherent? Should we conclude that a single self is necessary both to account for conscious experience and to enable responsibility for action? Or are multiple selves necessary both to account for different aspects of us, and for wildly divergent thoughts and behaviour that we can exhibit.
Book Tickets now!
Governments, bankers and economists spend a great deal of time predicting the economy. Their forecasts have a profound effect on policy. But the forecasts are often wrong, and critics argue we just don't have a credible theory of how the economy works. In 2023, 70% of economists polled predicted a US recession which never happened. In 2021, 16 of the 36 living American Nobel economists declared “there was no threat of inflation”. In Britain, the government body tasked with forecasting, the OBR, has admitted 'genuine errors' in its forecasts of inflation. Not surprisingly one of the world's leading economic research institutes concludes 'pretty much everything we could have got wrong, we got wrong.'
Should we conclude that 70 years after Keynes, and 40 years after monetarism, we lack a robust overall economic theory? Can we eradicate the impact of political beliefs and assumptions in economic forecasting? Or are forecasts from current models always going to be full of errors, and what we really need is a new overall economic theory?
Initial evidence for the Big Bang came in the 1930s when the universe was found to be expanding with observation of a red shift in light from distant galaxies. But the clinching evidence was the discovery in the 1960s of a faint background level of radiation wherever we looked in the universe. Cosmologists argued this background radiation was the residual radiation from the Big Bang. But now the story is looking less straightforward and more unknown. Firstly we found the universe is not just moving but accelerating away from us undermining the redshift as proof of the Big Bang. Meanwhile, the cosmic background radiation, or CMB, requires many ad hoc additions to account for its distribution. Moreover, recent findings from the James Webb telescope have found discrepancies with Big Bang predictions for the universe.
Might Cosmic Background Radiation turn out not to be a relic of the Big Bang at all? In combination with the puzzle of the accelerating universe is it possible that the whole current cosmological model and the Big Bang theory itself might be at risk? Or does Big Bang work so well that it would be a mistake to contemplate radical alternatives?
Host of the biggest cosmology show on YouTube, PBS Space Time, Matt O'Dowd, black hole researcher and student of Stephen Hawking Marika Taylor, and astrophysicist and philosopher Martín López Corredoira debate the aftermath of the Big Bang story.
Many cultures have had 'medicine men' who claim to know what disease is and how it works. Modern medicine has been spectacularly successful. But can we really claim to now understand disease and health?
Studies published in the British Medical Journal show over half of all diagnoses are wrong, while 350 million people each year develop a disease medical professionals are unable to understand. Even when we do get a diagnosis, the true nature of disease, and how to treat it, is often fundamentally unknown. 1 in 4 symptoms go unexplained, every person responds to every disease differently, and scientists from the University of Oxford have admitted that even with drugs we take regularly, like paracetamol, we "still don’t really know how they work".
Should we reject the idea that we can ever really know what is wrong with us? Should we find new ways of understanding illness that are more holistic and include things like lifestyle, mental and spiritual health? Or must we double down on modern medicine, even if we're not entirely sure how it works?
It is seventy years since the pioneer of computer science and Enigma codebreaker, Alan Turing, argued that if we cannot distinguish between a computer's response and a human's, the computer is intelligent and can be said to think. According to this Turing Test computers are already thinking and intelligent. But critics argue this is a nonsense, and that it remains unknown how to test for intelligence or consciousness. The computer they argue is nothing but a machine able to produce outputs that copy human responses but it does not understand these outputs or have any intent in producing them.
Should we conclude that thought and consciousness are unobservable, and there is no brain process or computer test that identifies them? Was the Turing Test in fact a highly successful rhetorical device to encourage us to conclude that machines might one day think, now embedded in the very name 'Artificial Intelligence'? Or is this misguided and computers are already thinking beings and a modified version of The Turing Test can provide a test for consciousness?
We often judge mental health and disorder against a benchmark of what it is to be 'normal'. Critics argue though that this is a dangerous approach and what is normal is unknown. Cultures have often used mental illness to describe behaviour deemed unacceptable, which now strikes us as patently prejudiced and absurd. In 1851, American physician Samuel Cartwright coined the term 'drapetomania', a supposed mental illness causing enslaved African people to try to escape captivity. More widely for centuries women were diagnosed with hysteria. While today, studies from UCL and elsewhere suggest behaviours are being medicalised as depression or ADHD when they were previously part of a normal range of response.
Should we give up on the idea of normal, and see mental disorders not as illnesses, but as different ways of being in the world? Is normality a means to control the behaviour of others and should we change society to stop demonising the different? Or is it essential to identify abnormal behaviour so that we can help the individual concerned and protect society?
Mental health author and creative director Rose Cartwright, clinical psychologist Frank Tallis and professor of mental health Dinesh Bhughra debate mental health and the idea of normal.
The population crisis used to be about exponential growth, now for many countries it is population decline. In Japan, Korea, and China, populations are already falling. At current birth rates Japan's population, almost twice that of Britain is predicted to fall below Britain's by the end of the century. But birth rates are falling across the globe. To maintain population levels birth rates need to average a little over two. For the US and every country in Europe, it is now less than two. Some are almost half this level. Many explanations are offered, but the answer and its solution remain unknown. Governments facing decline have tried increasingly radical interventions, encouraging couples to have children with financial rewards and free child care, but with no success.
Will population decline lead to economic and social collapse as some argue? Could technology come to the rescue making it unnecessary for women to give birth? Or should we welcome the change as a means to contain the plague of humans that many believe threatens the planet?
We don't know the past or the future, but we think we know the present. The moment of the present, TS Eliot's 'still point of the turning world', provides us with our observations of the world, the evidence for science, and the content of our consciousness. Yet, philosophers and neuroscientists have argued the present is unattainable and unknowable. Poststructuralists like Derrida claim there is no 'now' that provides direct and immediate access to meaning. Our descriptions are part of a shifting web of meaning that we can never get to the bottom of and which is limited by culture and history. While leading neuroscientists claim the reality we perceive in the present is a form of hallucination, or interface, evolved for survival.
Do we need to give up the idea that the present is a moment of truth that provides the reality of experience? Are our descriptions of the present always undecidable and indeterminate? Or is the notion of a fixed present essential if we are to create and judge our theories and accounts of reality, without which we would be hopelessly lost?
Award-winning novelist Joanna Kavenna, outspoken scientist Rupert Sheldrake and author of Hyposubjects: On Becoming Human Timothy Morton debate whether the present moment is as stable as we like to think.
The New York Times proclaimed last year that girls rule the internet, thanks in part to the success of the Barbie movie and Taylor Swift's Eras Tour. But, while stereotypical femininity made an unexpected comeback, it remains unknown what femininity is or what a more feminine world looks like. Feminists themselves disagree. Second-wave feminists reject traditional feminine aesthetics, while third-wave feminists often celebrate them. The Barbie movie had a feminist narrative, but it still led to a 136% rise in searches for clothing with traditional Barbie-like aesthetics.
Should we reject the re-introduction of traditional feminine stereotypes as undermining of the core goals of feminism? Should we focus on practical matters like the defence of equal pay and abortion rights? Or is the female/male binary at fault and do we need to give up categorising people or behaviours as feminine in the first place?
Originally to be progressive was to believe in progress and to imagine there was a right side to history. But times have changed. What it is to be progressive looks increasingly in question. Science and technology that were once the dream of early 20th-century socialism, are often the the focus of attack. Some of the most radical favour a return to a pre-industrial world. Meanwhile, stability and security, once the rallying cry of conservatives, are now endorsed by many who see themselves as progressive. And across Europe the young, traditionally the drivers of progressive change, are increasingly voting with the right.
Do we have to recognise that without a clear vision of progress we have also lost the idea of what it is to be progressive? Is there a new vision around which a progressive politics can be built? Or was the idea of progress always an illusion, a means of imposing on history the idealistic prejudices of our time?
Order and disorder are central to our understanding of the world. Biologists define life as the expending of energy to create order. In neuroscience, a 2023 MIT study concluded the mind operates in the play between order and chaos when seeking to make sense of the world. While physics goes further embedding the notion in a fundamental law of the universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which requires that disorder, defined as 'entropy', always increases. But critics argue order and disorder are human concepts and depend on our perspective. How are we then to make sense of the idea they are objective states of the universe? Especially when there would appear to be a great deal more order on the Earth since it first formed as a ball of fire some four billion years ago.
Should we throw order and disorder out of the scientific canon, along with entropy and the Second Law? Can we eradicate subjectivity and define order and chaos purely mathematically? Or, is the real problem the distinction between the subjective and objective in the first place?
Once controversial when Darwin first developed his theory, it is now almost universally accepted that humans evolved from apes and earlier ancestors by a process of natural selection that ensured the traits of the fittest were passed on while others were discarded. But many now argue that this process which led to the 'success' of the human species has ceased to apply to humans, because almost all of us survive to child bearing age. Leading primatologists and geneticists maintain 'modern nutrition and medicine have removed the selection pressure driving human evolution', with the result that 'natural selection no longer has death as a handy tool'. The prize winning scientist Freeman Dyson concluded 'the epoch of Darwinian evolution ended about ten thousand years ago'.
Is natural selection over and humans at greater risk of succumbing to a new threat or pathogen due to a less adapted gene pool? Is our evolution now driven by culture and technology and do we need a radical overhaul of our evolutionary theory as a consequence? Or is the case mistaken, human evolution through natural selection alive and well, and continuing to determine the future of the human race?
Across the world, from liberals to conservatives, from revolutionaries to Hollywood movies, freedom is held up as the central perhaps key political goal. Many have proposed definitions. But there is no agreement. And the harder we look the more elusive and unknown freedom becomes. Lenin wrote, 'when there is freedom, there will be no state'. But Burke argued you can only ever have freedom in a state. Voltaire claimed that a person 'is free at the moment he wishes to be'. Yet for Arendt, thinking about freedom was a 'hopeless enterprise'. But is anyone ever free? Are we free of our upbringing, our circumstances, our cultural prejudices, our species perspective?
If we are unable to determine what it is to be free, should we stop appealing to it as a political goal? Or should we accept it as a rhetorical device to encourage others to adopt our outlook? Or does freedom remain an essential aim to escape the limitations imposed on us by forces out of our control?
From fabulous houses to glamorous holidays, superyachts to personal helicopters, we often assume expensive things are the most desirable and the market accurately determines the true value of things. But others point to the truism that relationships are the most important factor in our lives, and love and friendship are free. From swimming in the sea to climbing a mountain, from carrying a child on our shoulders to sharing a sunset with a lover, price they argue is no guide to life. As Oscar Wilde remarked, "a fool is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing". Price, as can be seen from tulips and bread, is a matter of fashion and availability than of underlying value.
Should we conclude that price has nothing to do with value and give up the idea that the expensive is desirable? Should we construct an economy whereby the things that really matter have an equal footing with items that are currently highly-priced? Or is this a romantic illusion, and the price mechanism an extraordinarily powerful and effective means of assessing the value of everything?
Oxford University economist Daniel Susskind, former editor-in-chief of The Observer Will Hutton, political economist at the LSE Abby Innes, and former Chief Strategy Officer of RBS Richard Kibble debate the true value of things.
We increasingly see sex as a strictly physical act. Freed from traditional social norms, and combined with a new frontier of emancipation for women, casual sex is the new normal. But is the nature and meaning of sex less apparent than we imagine? Surveys show that 70% experience regret after causal sex. Troubling if we consider that higher levels of sexual satisfaction are associated with lover levels of anxiety and depression, in teens and adults alike. Moreover, sex from an evolutionary point of view is about having children, and our choice of partner for that purpose is hardly a casual event. Are love and commitment, once a social requirement for sex, unavoidably linked to the act of sex itself?
Should we admit that sex is always more than the physical? Should we spend less time on the mechanics of 'good' sex and give more time to its psychological, social and, for some, spiritual meaning? Or is it a step back to the hierarchies and traditions of the past, and should we instead celebrate our newfound freedom and be thankful for its pleasures?
Author of This is Your Brain on Birth Control Sarah Hill, sociologist and trans campaigner Finn Mackay, and former senior research fellow at The Future of Humanity Institute Anders Sandberg debate the meaning of sex.
Event in association with the New Humanist.
Experience is fleeting, and life along with it. Throughout recorded history, humans have sought to still its passage with drawings, diaries, and tales of glory. Today we take photographs, thousands of them, the great majority of which will never be viewed. But is the recording and recounting of our lives of any help in dealing with the unknown and momentary character of life? Sartre argued that; 'you have to choose: to live or to recount' but can never do both. Meanwhile, multiple Harvard studies have claimed to show living in the present is beneficial for mental health. And The British Psychological Society showed that taking photos impedes our memory of objects, distancing us from direct experience.
In an Instagram world, is the recording and recounting of our lives, undermining experience and leaving us with thin, empty lives? Should we embrace life's fleeting nature and renounce our devotion to documentation? Or is the desire to hold still and capture the passing of time a sign of our self-awareness and a profoundly important part of what it is to be human?
Many think climate and environmental pollution are immediate threats to the human race, and while not all endorse an impending apocalypse almost everyone thinks action needs to be taken. To keep consumers and investors on side companies want to be seen to be reducing their carbon footprint and to be showing concern for the environment while maintaining profits. Environment Social Governance (ESG) investments, carbon credits and green bonds were supposed to be the answer. But critics claim returns on these investments have gone into reverse and we don't know how to protect the climate and deliver profits. Moreover, recent research from the European Commission found 68% of US executives admit their companies are guilty of greenwashing, and some high-profile critics claim ESG is nothing more than a scam.
Should we give up on green market initiatives as an exercise in virtue signalling rather than valuable environmental action? Are there more credible genuine means to make the economy work for the planet? Or, should we accept that capitalism and environmentalism are fundamentally incompatible?
Co-leader of the Green Party Carla Denyer, author and campaigner Guy Shrubsole and macro policy lead at Deloitte Socrates Mokkas debate green capitalism.
Space has a strange hold over us. Star Trek and Star Wars are amongst the most-watched films of all time, while the moon landing gripped an era and was the most-watched TV event ever. Now new generations are once again hooked by a return to the moon and the prospect of Mars. But what drives us to explore space is puzzling and unknown. The closest planets are desolate rocks. More distant planets have no surface being composed of freezing gas. Earth by comparison is a spectacular paradise. It would currently take 80,000 years to reach the next star and no known future technology is likely to change this by the orders of magnitude required to make it plausible.
Is the desire to explore space not practical but psychological, an urge to adventure into the unknown and escape our current limitations? Or should we take seriously Musk's claim that we need to go to Mars to find an alternative to Earth, however inhospitable? Or is the project profoundly mistaken and the consequence of pursuing an evolutionary trait to explore when in this case there is little or nothing to be gained?
Theoretical astrophysicist Avi Loeb, astrophysicist and host of PBS Space Time Matt O'Dowd, and author of Extraterrestrial Life: A Guide to the Debates Carol Cleland debate whether space exploration is a practical answer to humanity's problems or whether it fulfills a psychological urge.
In partnership with New Scientist
From freedom to feminism, democracy to truth, we go to war over words. Sometimes it is actually bloody. Millions died in the crusades over definitions of the word 'God'. Millions more over definitions of 'socialism' in Stalin's Russia and Mao's Cultural Revolution. But some argue meaning is unknown or unknowable even in a specific context. Wittgenstein maintained words do not have a meaning outside of a given language game. Derrida that there is no decidable meaning in any circumstance. Every sentence can be deconstructed to identify an indefinite number of possible meanings. Meanwhile, linguistic studies have shown that even in everyday use common nouns have at least ten to thirty different 'meanings'.
Should we stop arguing over the meaning of words and recognise that those words have no single or correct meaning? Are attempts to define words a means of imposing one perspective, and therefore at root a power play? Or is it the case that without an agreed set of meanings, we are profoundly lost in a world of confusion?
We think fun an important element of life, characterised since the sixties as 'sex, drugs and rock and roll'. And indeed, what would life be without those? But there's rising evidence that we no longer know how to have fun, and some argue it is starting to threaten our pleasure in being alive. Studies show adults have 40% less sex than they did thirty years ago, drug taking in young people has decreased by over a third since 2003, and a quarter of those under 35 have no interest in alcohol at all. Only half of Americans think they have fun on a regular basis, while in Britain a study concluded working from home has led to millions losing the knack of having a good time. Meanwhile, mental health is deteriorating across all generations but particularly in the young.
Should we conclude that fun is not a superficial addition to our lives but essential? Is spontaneous interaction with others necessary for fun and has an increasingly virtual and internet world undermined this? Or was Epicurus wrong and the pursuit of pleasure a dangerous and mistaken strategy?
Journalist and filmmaker Myriam François, author of Philosophy in a Meaningless Life James Tartaglia, and the mind behind the Substack Girls Freya India, debate the philosophy of fun.
As conflicts spiral across the globe, we tend to think wars are won on land and in the air. But critics argue the real battleground and the primary arena is the sea, and sea power the means by which global influence is delivered. 90% of all trade is carried by sea, and many strategists have concluded it is control of the oceans that in a global world enables dominance, as Pax Britannica and Pax Americana demonstrated over the last couple of centuries. Nevertheless, the U.S. navy has shrunk by 50% in 40 years, while China's has doubled in the last 20 years to become the largest in the world.
Should we recognise that naval power is the ultimate determinant of global influence? Is the relative decline of US and Western naval forces a sign of the end of Western dominance and will China be the world power of the future? Or is it a fundamental mistake to see control of the sea as vital in a technological age where ships are easy to target and hard to defend?
Former Vice Admiral Royal Navy officer Duncan Potts, former editor of The Times Simon Jenkins, and writer and China expert Isabel Hilton debate sea power and its role in the new world order.
We tend to think that aesthetics is secondary to core values such as truth, morality and justice, and more superficial than other attributes such as intelligence, health and relationships. Unlike other values, some question whether beauty should be valued at all. Roger Scruton claimed 'beauty is vanishing... because we live as though it did not matter'. Yet in the objects we acquire, the places we choose to live, and our choice of partner most do prioritise beauty, some would say unhealthily so. A recent study of 15,000 people found they felt happier in beautiful surroundings. And some philosophers including Nietzsche and Heidegger have prioritised aesthetics over traditional notions of truth.
Should beauty be at the forefront of our values and if so what would this mean for the way we make judgments and run our lives? Or should we rein in aesthetic concerns as subjective, elitist and lacking concern for purpose or morality? More fundamentally, why is beauty of importance and what change would it make to culture if we made it central to society?
University of Oxford professor Ankhi Mukherjee, Nietzschian philosopher Babette Babich, multi-New York Times bestselling author Sarah Wilson, and author of Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics Paul Ernest debate whether aesthetics is actually the highest value.
"The person with a why to live for can bear almost any how,” claimed Nietzsche. And from Aristotle's human flourishing, to Kant's pursuit of the highest good, philosophers have offered many answers to the ‘why’ of life.
They are joined today by a host of psychologists, pundits and politicians all offering their own solutions. But the goal and purpose of life remains unknown. Many have thought ‘happiness’ might be the answer but it turns out to be a largely English-speaking and European phenomenon. For the Chinese loyalty and stability are the predominant goals. What we do know is that in the West more than half of young adults report that they lack 'meaning, purpose... and knowing what to do with their life'.
Is the mistake to look for a goal in the first place? Or is the purpose of life to choose a purpose and make it our own? Then again, is the unknown character of the goal of life the very thing that gives life its edge, its meaning and its value?
We think that knowing the truth allows us to intervene successfully in the world. It's precisely because fusion releases neutrons that we can build nuclear weapons, and precisely because we know the laws of physics that we can travel into space. But critics argue we don't know that science reveals the truth at all. Over half of the world's leading physicists say quantum mechanics doesn't accurately describe reality. And the great 20th century philosopher Putnam claimed 'science takes away foundations without providing a replacement,' leading many to point to a fundamental problem.
If we give up the idea of objective truth, how can we do anything? Will we discover how our theories enable us to intervene if we don't share a unified account of reality? Do we need to do away with the need to explain how our theories work altogether? Or can we only explain how they work by appealing to truth?
Explore the speakers!
We take it for granted that through language and communication we can learn about the experience of others. But it remains unknown whether we can fully know what it is like to be another human being.
James Baldwin and Jean Pual Sartre take radically different approaches. For Sartre, the experience of others is unknown to us. Fundamentally, we are alone with our own subjectivity. While for Baldwin, 'to encounter oneself is to encounter the other; and this is love.' Summing up his disagreement with Sartre he remarked: "it has always seemed to me that ideas were somewhat more real to him than people.”
Was Baldwin right that to be alive is to be socially connected to others? Or is Sartre's insight that the only thing we can know is our own experience more telling? Should we conclude that we cannot understand the experience of another unless we have had the same experience? Or is language capable of bridging the seemingly impossible gap between us?
The digital revolution transformed our capacity to communicate. Email was at the heart of that change with more than 300 billion sent daily. At the outset, it was said to herald a new era for the economy akin to the industrial revolution. But the predicted improvements in output and efficiency have not materialised. Critics now question whether these technologies improve our economy or our lives at all. Research at the University of California Irvine demonstrated that employees in 'no email' conditions, were more focused and less distracted. They also had lower stress levels. Leading entrepreneurs have gone further, British inventor James Dyson has banned staff from writing memos and discourages digital communication, limiting his own inbox to just 6 emails a day.
Instead of seeing email, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Slack as digital advances should we see them as distraction devices that undermine achievement and destroy well-being? Should we set about removing them from our working and personal lives? Or is this Luddite paranoia, and digital communication powerful technologies that will evolve further and enhance our experience and our activity?
Author of Nihilism and Technology Nolen Gertz, author of The Nowhere Office Julia Hobsbawm and lead of brand practice at Deloitte Digital Katie Farrell debate whether communication technology is ruining or revolutionising our lives and work.
A Truly Unique Offering
The Independent
Press
