Tier 2 Tickets available now
Explore unmapped topics on the frontiers of thought in HowTheLightGetsIn May 2021 debates where eminent thinkers challenge each other and drive their disciplines forward.
The debate programme is designed to push the limits of what you know. Listen out for the latest programme announcements.
Explore our Speakers Explore our Hat Sessions Book Now
Europe felled its great forests centuries ago to fuel its economy and the well being of its citizens. Yet the West insists that countries with rain forests, from Brazil to Borneo, should protect them both to produce oxygen for the rest of the world and to save the forest ecology. Brazil’s president called the West’s attitude ‘colonial’ and suggested reforesting Europe instead. Is he right?
Is it hypocritical to insist that Brazil protects its ecology for our benefit when we continue to profit from the destruction of our own? Should we stop bemoaning rain forest destruction and act to introduce radical taxation to pay to keep them alive? Or is there nothing any single country can do and instead we need global action - but if so who is deciding on the action and who is enforcing it?
Brazilian politician and environmentalist Marina Silva, Harvard Economist Kenneth Rogoff, former UK Lib-Dm leader Vince Cable and one of Brazil's leading experts on forestry Virgilio Viana debate Forests, Hypocrisy and the West
We venerate democracy as a political system on the grounds that it allows everyone in society to have a voice. Yet democracies precisely do not give a voice to the minority. And if the minority is permanent, there is a risk those groups are permanently disenfranchised. Most apparent with religious minorities perhaps, Catholics in Northern Ireland, Muslims in India. But perhaps also true in votes on long term issues such as independence or crisis moments be it war or civil unrest.
Should we admit our hypocrisy and realise that liberal democracy does not give a voice to all? Can, and should. we change our political system so that it represents the entire spectrum of voter interests? Or would this be yet another unfairness - the tyranny of the median voter?
Historian and international best-selling author Rutger Bregman, former Brexit Party MEP Claire Fox, and Senior Editor for The Economist Kenneth Cukier debate A Voice for All. Hosted by Rana Mitter.
As the power of the tech giants grows ever greater and science is seen to despoil the planet and use ever greater resources, many are increasingly critical of science, Yet no one is handing in their technology.
Should we stop complaining about big tech and science and recognise and welcome the many improvements to our lives that they have brought? Or are the changes brought about by science and technology profoundly damaging to our personal well being and to the planet - and should we be seeking to rein in their power before it is too late?
Author of the bestsellingThe Precipice Toby Ord, popular science TV presenter Dallas Campbell, Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke and theoretical physicist and founder of Empathetic Technologies Fotini Markopoulou debate whether big tech will be our downfall.
One of the characteristics of modern society is our desire to believe that we aren't alone in the universe. It seems every other week we hear a false-alarm story about life on Mars, Titan or whichever celestial body is in vogue. And decades of listening for messages from outer space have identified precisely nothing. With no evidence to suggest life is out there, and with the maths and the Drake equation actively pointing to our solitude, why are we so determined to maintain our belief in extraterrestrial life?
Is our desire to believe in alien life a desire to avoid being alone in a scientific universe? A replacement for God perhaps in a secular world. Or is it an avoidance of the precious character of life on earth? Or is it just a matter of time before we uncover life forms if not in our own solar system on other exo-planets.
Professor of Evolutionary Biochemistry Nick Lane, revolutionary astrophysicist and Pulsars discoverer Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Harvard Scientist and New York Times bestseller Avi Loeb debate Alive in the Universe.
Materialism dominates the intellectual culture of the West. In a survey of academic philosophers 85% identified as atheists. In Europe established religion has been in decline for a century, even in the States attendance is falling. Yet globally religion remains a potent force, and predictions of its demise have not materialised. Amongst those who have abandoned established religion new forms of spirituality, such as mindfulness and yoga are on the rise.
Does religion, in all its many forms, provide a psychological support for humans that makes it essential - without which there is only the void? Is there something about being itself that is ineffable and which can never be eradicated? Or Is the persistence of religion an extended but ultimately temporary phenomenon that will be replaced by the success of science?
Firebrand philosopher Slavoj Zizek, author of Ways to Go Beyond and The Science Delusion Rupert Sheldrake and historian and author of American Nietzsche Jennifer Ratner Rosenhagen debate meaning in a secular age.
Great leaders promise to change the world. They claim to have the vision and the values to transform our lives. But again and again they fail to deliver professionally and personally. They fall short of their promises through lack of agency or incompetency, and fail us morally, by hypocritically holding others to ethical standards that they flout themselves.
But do we really know what we want from a leader? Should we admit that we, their followers, are at fault for demanding perfection from them at all times? Is it time that we stop asking leaders to be virtuous and allow them to stand above the rest of us, aloof and powerful, so long as they get the job done? Or should we continue to insist that leaders should be relatable as well as competent?
Pulitzer prize winning historian Joseph J Ellis, CEO of Havas and author of No Bullsh*t Leadership Chris Hirst, and chief executive of the cross-party think tank DEMOS Polly Mackenzie debate Leadership, Hypocrisy and Power.
In association with:
We imagine ourselves as existing within time and space. Yet, we only ever experience the present moment. It is all we have. And within the present moment there is no direct experience of past or future. Nor is the present moment located anywhere, since it is everything for us. In short, there is no map reference for being or consciousness. No time zone or hour.
Should we therefore abandon the idea that experience takes place in time and space? Might consciousness operate in an entirely different sphere, outside of the world of space and time? Or is space and time the only reality, and our experience a snapshot through which we make sense of the world.
Renowned multiverse theoriest Laura Mersini-Houghton, legendary physicist, writer and broadcaster Paul Davies and philosopher of science Craig Callender lock horns over the arrows of time.
From Mark Zuckerberg pledging $3 billion to cure global disease, to Elon Musk funneling his fortune into projects designed to stop ‘evil AI’, powerful private interests are seeking to influence the direction of scientific progress. Furthermore, recent reports show that 70% of all scientific research is funded by the commercial interests and of the remaining more than half is funded for military purposes. On the one hand, we see science as the gold standard of objective truth. Yet, we allow and encourage science to be influenced in its direction and its research by those with evident vested interests.
Can science provide an unbiased and independent account of the world, when so much new research is burdened with monetary incentives? Does the problem lie deeper and do scientists need to give up the notion that their work is noble and with pure intentions? And if this is the case, where does this leave the pursuit of truth?
Libertarian biochemist and former advisor to Thatcher Terence Kealey, and evolutionary biologist and professor in exile Bret Weinstein debate Experiment, Bias and Knowledge.
The descriptions 'right' and 'left' originated during the French Revolution. The left's rallying cry began with 'liberte' or 'freedom'. Yet today's left, from no platforming to cancel culture, from the economy to academic debate, often sees freedom as its enemy rather than its goal, while still claim to be on the side of 'liberte'.
Does the left need to re-engage with freedom and overcome its distaste for views it does not support? Or should the left move on and leave freedom behind in pursuit of fairness and justice for all?
Firebrand philosopher Slavoj Žižek, influential rapper and social commentator Lowkey, and outspoken author and journalist Ella Whelan debate the hypocrisies facing the Left.
“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence”, stated the philosopher Wittgenstein. In the early 20th century, Wittgenstein appeared to have proved that we can never understand the relationship between language and the world. Yet, almost 100 years after Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus’, many continue to wildy speculate about the meaning and nature of reality using our all-to-human language.
Have we ignored Wittgenstein’s clear message, that we can never know how language relates to the world? Are all our lofty descriptions about the nature of reality and metaphysics simply nonsense? Or was Wittgenstein wrong, and can we continue on in our human quest to accurately describe the world around us?
Author of the bestselling Zed Joanna Kavenna, philosopher Ray Brassier and philosopher and pioneer of 'theory fiction' Reza Negarestani lock horns over how we understand the world.
Most in our largely secular world think there is no afterlife; no final judgement, no reward nor punishment in the hereafter. Yet most still wish to act morally and ascetically, delaying gratification, even in private, in favour of some future reward. Even though, without God or an afterlife, we think there is no-one watching and judging us, and that 'right and wrong' are merely human creations.
What do we gain from doing 'the right thing' when there is no reward in the hereafter? Why do we reject pleasures in this life now, in favour of acting morally, when we know that there is no final judgement and that we will not be rewarded for doing so in the afterlife? Do we act morally because we still subconsciously believe God is always watching over us and judging us? If we realise morality is based upon an non-existent afterlife, then should we abandom the very idea of morality altogether? Or is it enough for moral and ascetic acts to be good in-themselves?
Turkish journalist, author and activist Ece Temelkuran, Anglican priest and scholar Alison Milbank and philosopher of mind Peter Sjöstedt-H debate the existence of a secular morality
From the development of a successful Covid vaccine to the formulaton of a new scientific theory, from the composition of a great opera to the making of an award winning movie, we prize creativity and celebrate its products. Yet in our education system and in our exams, creativity is largely excised. And in working life, carrying out a task accurately and efficiently is the primary focus.
Are we right to focus on learning, knowledge and experience? Should we give greater emphasis to creativity in all its many forms and encourage new solutions and new ways of operating? Or is creativity only possible when the hard work of learning the rules has been achieved? More fundamentally Is creativity itself unfathomable and impossible to teach and limited to those with exceptional talents?
Prolific economist, writer and broadcaster Linda Yueh, Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jesse Norman and distinguished neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett debate Knowledge vs Creativity.
Conservation, stability, order, these were the traditional goals of the right. Yet in today's politics the right is more typically associated with liberating the economy, encouraging competition and advocating change.
Has the right in endorsing liberal economics forgotten its roots and is it hypocritical in claiming to be 'conservative'? Does the right need to reassert these core values? Or should the right give up any remaining attachment to tradition and rebrand itself as the party of change and growth.
Most of us, scientists included, see physics as an attempt to provide an objective description of the world independent of human subjectivity and consciousness. Yet, Max Planck, one of major scientific figures of the twentieth century and the founder of quantum mechanics, stated as a result of his investigations and experiments: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”
Should we listen to Planck? Can we plausibly see matter as derivative of consciousness? Might doing so help solve the deep puzzles facing contemporary physics and overcome the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ itself? Or does this outlook, as Einstein argued, undermine the very success and objectivity of science and take us back to a world of superstition?
Cosmologist, theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton, groundbreaking physicist Brian Greene, esteemed physics and philosophy writer Amanda Gefter and eliminative materialism pioneer Patricia Churchland debate Planck and the Consciousness Puzzle.
Many think fur coats immoral yet are happy to wear leather shoes. We fiercely protect tigers and pandas from extinction, while thousands of vital insect species get notably less attention and concern. Many claim to be concerned about the welfare of animals. But it is the cute and the charismatic that come first. The others are largely an after thought.
Should we end this hypocrisy by treating animal species equally, however difficult this might be? Should biodiversity be an end in itself and the basis for intervention? Or are we right to make distinctions based on the value we attach to the species along with the accident of human desire, fashion and aesthetics?
Philosopher, cultural critic and author of Aping Mankind Ray Tallis and Professor of Sociology at Kingston University Kay Peggs debate the hypocrisy of the way we treat animals.
From the plots of Hollywood movies to the roots of Christianity, many see value in adversity and suffering. Be it in character building boot camps or overcoming the trials of a difficult childhood or adult life. Yet the great majority of us do our very best to avoid suffering in our own lives.
Should we conclude that the value of adversity and suffering is an illusion? A hangover from Christianity that modernity needs to excise? Or is it a vital and critical element in building personality and enabling a meaningful, fulfilling and significant life?
Many rail against the excesses of consumer society. An outlook given additional force by the belief that consumerism is a key factor in driving climate change. Yet the reality is that consumption continues to rise even though the evidence is that it makes us no happier. The average westerner has so many clothes, 75% are not worn from one year to the next. And worldwide we throw away between a third and a half of all food produced.
Should we conclude that minor ethical tweaks to our purchases will make little difference, and instead require a wholesale abandonment of over consumption? Or is consumer culture essential to our broader prosperity providing work and goods for all? And in either case, what are the activities and goals we need to genuinely enrich our lives and make us more satisfied?
From fairy tales to Harry Potter, from Avatar to James Bond, we love fantasy and expect our books and films to take us there. Yet at the same time we want our poems and plays, novels and movies, to reflect life and reality.
Should our narratives be seeking to uncover reality or be seeking escape from it? Or are both goals impossible? Are we on the one hand unable to create a narrative that tells it how it is, and on the other incapable of making a fantasy that does not reflect our current circumstances? And if so, why?
Director and producer of The Pervert's Guide to Cinema Sophie Fiennes and myths expert Betty Sue Flowers explore whether narratives should reflect reality, or escape it.
A UK First. Back To Big Thinking
The Guardian
Press
