Inspired by our festival theme, Uncharted Territory, each debate explores a new challenge that we are facing. From navigating competing risks, to the future of physics the debates will challenge the very coordinates of what you know. Check out the debates we have released below:
In response to the pandemic we all believe it is morally right to put the vulnerable first and make sure they are ok. But who are the vulnerable? Our own aged relatives who could die from the virus if they became infected? The millions of people worldwide who do not currently have enough to eat who will be pushed by the lockdown into starvation. Or those who due to mental ill health or personal circumstances who are unable to cope in a distanced world?
The Miracle of Mind
Despite the advances in neuroscience and the rapidly extending capacity of computers, we still have no adequate theory of consciousness. No account of how the brain is able to create experience. And no account of how the material stuff of the brain can be responsible for thought.
Should we conclude that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of the physical? But if so what is the alternative? Or is it just a matter of time, and one day an AI machine will miraculously find itself experiencing the world, and its mere components will have soul?
In Britain and the US we see the left as in favour of strong state policies to combat Covid-19. But in Sweden it is the social democratic government that is under attack from the right for not having enough government intervention.
Are oppositions in favour of a tighter lockdown as a means of criticising the government? Or is such a view the result of an ideological belief in the state's ability to sort things out?
At the heart of our understanding of reality is physics, the cornerstone of science. But it appears to be in all sorts of trouble. For decades it has been predicted that we would find 'supersymmetry' - a set of parallel particles for all those we currently understand to exist. It was the solution to many inconsistencies and deep puzzles in our current theory. 10,000 scientists collaborated to build The Large Hadron Collider to find the evidence. But year has followed year and no evidence of the predicted supersymmetric particles has been found.
Is supersymmetry dead, and with it string theory, the theory of everything, and the life's work of many leading particle physicists? Is our underlying theory, the Standard Model, fundamentally mistaken? Must we conclude that the whole framework of contemporary physics might be wrong? And if so, where can we turn for an alternative?
The Power of the Present
Celebrities swear by it, scientists study it, monks still practice it and business leaders use it to thwart burnout. Mindfulness, the art of living in the now, has grown hugely in recent years. Its advocates claim it is good for health, reduces stress and improves quality of life. While critics are skeptical that a 4 billion dollar industry has our interests truly at heart and challenge the idea that happiness is achievable by all.
Is being in the present a vital antidote to a distracted and divisive culture, offering a solution to the misery of humankind? Or has meditation and mindfulness always been a means to hide from the reality of life, peddling fantasy and acquiesence when change and intervention are what is really needed?
Novelist Meg Rosoff, author of McMindfulness Ron Purser and meditation specialist Danny Penman get to the bottom of the mindfulness phenomenon, hosted by HuffPost journalist Brogan Driscoll.
In association with
During the coronavirus pandemic the world became transfixed with the number of deaths. Covid-19 deaths are in most countries determined by testing everyone that dies for the virus and recording the total. But, as some scientists have pointed out, if everyone had the virus, everyone who died would test positive. Dying with the virus is not at all the same thing as dying from the virus.
So how should we decide the cause of death? Might it in principle be impossible to determine cause? Do we cease to live when we stop breathing, or when the heart stops, or is the brain the key to determining life? These questions are not only central to determining the impact of Covid-19 but are also relevant to all cases when we have a choice to make about whether to support life or not.
Words and the World
For most of the 20th century the question of language dominated philosophy, and the hunt was on for a theory to connect language to the world once and for all. But more than a hundred years have passed since Bertrand Russell began the project, and many now conclude that no credible theory has been found and the project has failed.
So where does philosophy go from here? Was the so called 'linguistic turn' just a mistake? Can we simply forget about the language puzzle and focus on other topics? Or has the failure to describe the relationship between language and the world vitiated all philosophy in its wake?
Pulitzer Prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, controversial philosophy professor Herman Cappelen, post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson, and philosophy lecturer Rebecca Roache lock horns over the importance of language.
The Age of Independence
We used to stay in the same village for generations in a craft or profession passed down from our parents. Now we make our own way in the world. On average, we live more than a hundred miles from where we were born, and pursue different careers from our parents and across our own lifetime, and form friendships by our own interests rather than location.
Should we be wary of this new found independence? Has it led to the decline of the family and is it a passport to isolation and social breakdown? Or has the global village enabled us to shake off the shackles and accident of our birth, and liberated us to be ourselves to pursue our potential to its maximum?
Spectator journalist Kate Andrews, renowned Emeritus Professor of Theology John Milbank, and Yassmin Abdel-Magied come together to consider the pitfalls of this age of independence.
The Return of the Colosseum
In Rome, gladiatorial combat and orgies were the mainstay of entertainment. While in the modern era public entertainment was cleansed in favour of music, sport, theatre and so forth. Now once again, the internet offers the diversions of the Colloseum to anyone who wishes to be so entertained. You want to see people killed, decapitated, raped, tortured? It is all there.
Where is this new uncharted space taking our entertainment and our morality? Should we see a return to the explicit desires of the ancients as a deeply troubling challenge to our culture that should be reined in and controlled to contain exploitation and human misery? Or is it a welcome overturning of a repressed and hypocritical culture?
Capitalism and Covid
The pandemic has led some to call for a radical overhaul of capitalism and a reordering of our priorities. And the sight of governments spending hundreds of billions on interventions has made ideas of a universal basic income look more plausible to many. But are these really deliverable? And would they work for the benefit of all?
Should we see the global response to the pandemic as evidence that massive government intervention is the solution to societies inequalities? Or is this fantasy, and the huge interventions will instead lead to a painful hangover and hard times for everyone?
Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman, author of "Why Liberalism Works" Professor Deirdre McCloskey, and journalist Grace Blakeley lock horns over the value of government intervention.
Risk, Evidence and Lockdown
In the West, faced with the growing pandemic, most epidemiologists favoured a strict lockdown. This was based on a key study of the 1919-20 Spanish flu epidemic which showed those cities in the US that enforced a strict lockdown saved lives. But is this study relevant to a new virus with different age groups at risk?
Could it be that Spanish flu was helped by lockdown because it hit all age groups including the young? While Covid-19 is most damaging to older groups and lockdown might even encourage more contact with those at risk?
Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk Sir David Spieghelhalter, Director of UCL’s Institute for Human Health Hugh Montgomery, and Oxford Professor of Epidemiology Sunetra Gupta scrutinise the consequences of lockdown.
We look to journalists and the media to challenge authority and uncover failure in addition of course to entertaining us. But in the face of a national, and in the case of Covid-19, a global crisis, some have argued that the media focus on challenging government, hyping drama, and focusing on negative stories, is irresponsible.
Should the media avoid creating fear and panic in a population faced with a real threat? Or should journalism always be driven by the biggest story - and bad news usually sells a great deal better than good news?
Presenter of the BBC's Today Programme Nick Robinson, Labour MP Jess Phillips, and political commentator David Goodhart consider the duty of the media during times of crisis.
Getting High and Being Human
For a century most Western governments have banned recreational drugs other than alcohol and tobacco. Now there are signs of a shift in perception. Canada and many states across the US have legalised the personal use of cannabis - creating a multi-billion dollar business and source of tax revenue. While Portugal decriminalised all drugs 19 years ago with falls in deaths from overdoses and drug related crime.
Should we resist this change on the grounds that all drugs are a threat to well being and undermine human experience? Or, is this shift a rational decision about cost and benefits? And might the use of some psychedelic drugs be actually beneficial for our mental health and state of being?
Imperial College psychiatrist and former government drugs adviser David Nutt, philosopher of mind Peter Sjostedt-H, and Annemarie Ward get to the bottom of getting high.
Values of the West
The West once saw itself as the driver of global progress. We were confident Enlightenment values would guarantee success, uncover knowledge and create progressive social change. Now many are beset with doubt. Critical of our past we have little faith in the future and the power of our core beliefs to bring a better world.
Is this self-criticism a welcome and less arrogant outlook - a consequence perhaps of Western imperial guilt and relative economic decline? Or should we overcome our doubts and reignite faith in our values and their power to improve lives? Alternatively, can we escape our history to fashion a new set of ideals that we are proud to endorse and which drives success?
Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University Kehinde Andrews, philosopher Raymond Tallis and journalist and host of the podcast We Need To Talk About Whiteness Myriam Francois (PhD Oriental Studies, Oxford University), who is also research associate at the Centre for Islamic Studies at SOAS, face the colonial legacy head on.
The Matrix or the Miracle?
Babies need mothers. Or so we have imagined. Yet two breakthroughs in the last couple of years call this into question. Using only skin cells as their starting point researchers in Japan in 2017 have grown egg cells in the lab. While in the Netherlands scientists claim they are within a decade of creating an artificial womb.
Does this technology make babies in the lab a credible outcome and motherhood and birth potentially unnecessary? Will it lead to a dystopian future and a profound threat to family life and society as whole? Or should we welcome the technique as a means to enable infertile couples and gay men to have children and women to avoid the risks of pregnancy?
Philosopher and co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association David Pearce, social commentator Theodore Dalrymple, and biomedical researcher Güneş Taylor imagine the future of the family.
The Known and the Unknown
For much of human history people have held firm - if mistaken - beliefs about the nature of the world and the right course of action. But now a steep decline in religious belief allied to doubt about the very possibility of objective truth has left many in the West profoundly lost.
Should we welcome this new uncertainty and absence of an agreed set of beliefs? Is it simply a recognition of the human condition but which hubris has often obscured or denied? Or must we escape from being lost - even if it means adopting illusory certainties - in order to provide social identity, personal well being and purpose?
The Black Hole Paradox
Astronomers last year claimed to have achieved what was thought impossible, and captured an image of a black hole, seemingly proving the existence of these mysterious objects. Yet not everyone is convinced. Black holes are so described because they were proposed as a space from which nothing can escape. At the heart of the black hole physics seemed to come to an end, its laws in tatters. Stephen Hawking, having been the first to propose black holes, at the end of his life came to argue that they did not exist - at least in the sense in which they were first described.
Is the idea of a black hole from which nothing can escape a mistake? If so, how can we resolve the paradox that they were predicted by a combination of relativity and quantum mechanics? Or should we hold onto the idea of black holes, however mysterious and problematic they are?
World renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg and UCL Professor of Astrophysics Amelie Saintonge tackle the paradox of Black Holes.
Profits, Value and Fantasy
Once companies needed to make profits to be successful. Now that seems so 20th century. Uber, We Work, Lyft, make ever more spectacular losses. Last year Uber lost a staggering 15 million dollars every day, 5 billion dollars a year. Yet, as their losses have grown their stock market value has risen massively.
Are these huge Ponzi schemes that will at some point go bust creating chaos and disruption? Is their value based on the idea of future monopoly profits that are bad for the economy, bad for competition, digital workers and the consumer? Or are they a sign that capitalism is working well, promoting radical change and generating the long term investment needed to bring it about?
The Rise and Fall of Globalisation
We have traded goods across continents for centuries, in some cases for thousands of years. But it was in the 20th century that globalisation came of age with most primary goods being sourced internationally. Now there is challenge to this phenomenon - from every part of the political spectrum. Localism is the word on the lips of brexiteers, the left and the greens.
Do we need to urgently pursue localism as a necessary response to inequality, excess, and a global crises of resources? Or is globalisation a positive force enriching our experience, and localism conservative and backward looking leading to higher prices, fewer goods, and radically lower living standards?
Former Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable, Spectator journalist Kate Andrews and author of Stolen: How to Save the World from Financialisation Grace Blakeley lock horns over the future of globalisation.
Extinction and Renewal
Citing evidence that species are becoming extinct at a thousand times faster than the background rate, many argue the Sixth Great Mass Extinction is already upon us. And for the first time caused by a single species, humankind. Others contend that at current rates - 100 species a year - it would take a 1000 years to lose just 1% of current species. In the meantime the number of new species is continuing to grow - exceeding the number of species lost.
Are we facing a profound crisis? Do we need to radically change our behaviour and way of life to save the planet's animal life? Or are our conservation efforts proving effective and nature stronger than we suppose and capable of creating entirely new life forms without our help?
Power to the People
From Trump to Kim Jong-Il, from Putin to Bashar al-Assad, from the far right to the far left, everyone claims to be in favour of democracy. But of what form and in whose interest? In the West democracy has meant electing others to decide for us. Now, perhaps for the first time, there is a widespread feeling that our form of democracy is in trouble. But where are we heading?
Were we mistaken to imagine that democracy is necessarily progressive and will deliver for the people? Could we harness blockchain technology to enable a new more direct form of democracy that gives everyone a voice? Or is the very idea of giving everyone a say an illusion that leaves us victim to those with power and influence? Democracy is supposed to give power to the people. But how can this be achieved?
The Age of Anxiety
Anxiety appears to be a galloping epidemic. Since its introduction as a medical condition in the 80s, anxiety has risen from 2% of cases to the most commonly diagnosed mental illness. Today it affects more than a fifth of the population and a third of all young people.
Is the growth in anxiety a rational response to deeply uncertain times? An over medicalisation of behaviour that would once have been seen as normal? Or a consequence of an obsessively distracted social media culture? And importantly should we treat patients more, or will we only address the crisis by changing our society and its toxic culture?
Leading drugs researcher David Nutt, member of the Climate Psychology Alliance Caroline Hickman, and consultant NHS psychiatrist Mark Salter clash over the roots of and remedies for our rising anxiety.
The End of the Whitewash
We celebrate diversity and in the arts many support colour blind casting. From the film David Copperfield to the musical Hamilton, stories are cast to reflect the racial diversity of our culture. But far from being progressive, critics argue that the racist Victorian society of Dickens's novels and the white colonial history of America is papered over and obscured.
Should we applaud the overcoming of historical accuracy in favour of racially blind representation and ignore race as a relevant characteristic in all circumstances? Or is colour blindness a liberal mistake - a dangerous denial of racial identity and a long history of white supremacy?
China: Ally or Threat?
China's growth over the last two decades has been remarkable. In 1995, its economy was half the size of the UK's. Today it is six times larger. For the most part relations with the West have been calm if not entirely friendly. But from trade wars with the US to sabre-rattling in the South China Sea, and an arms race in space, tensions are increasing.
Are we wrong to assume that the transition towards Chinese economic dominance will be peaceful and benign? Or will the transition prove deeply unsettling for the world and threaten its stability? Should we see China as a long-term ally, or as a potential threat to our way of life?
Foreign secretary under John Major, Malcolm Rifkind, founder of chinadialogue Isabel Hilton and former Lib Dem leader Vince Cable debate the West's future relationship with China.
Sexuality, Power and Pornography
Critics of porn have long argued that it is organised by men for men, with women as the exploited puppets of the show. But now, its supporters argue, a raft of women directors are making porn for women. And with more than a third of women accessing porn every week making up 30% of all viewing of pornography, a new audience has arrived.
Should we see this as a disturbing extension of an already dangerous porn industry, that turns human beings into products and users into addicts? Or is it a time to celebrate the liberation of female desire and escape from a centuries old and enfeebling vision of female sexuality?
Comedienne and star of Bridget Jones and Miranda Sally Phillips, legendary human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, author of Fucking Law: The Search for Her Sexual Ethics Victoria Brooks, and author of Turned On Kate Devlin go head to head over feminist pornography, hosted by HuffPost journalist Nancy Groves.
In association with
Metaphysics, Morality and Mayhem
Most philosophers have thought our account of the world must precede our conclusions about how we should act - metaphysics before morality. Now in an era where there is deep puzzlement about what the overall framework might be, it begins to look as if we need to know what we want to do and achieve before we can decide on what account of the world we might adopt.
Should we put morality before metaphysics and decide how we want to change the world before deciding how it is to be understood? Or is this profoundly mistaken and a quick route to conflict, division and chaos?
Philosopher, poet, and polymath Raymond Tallis, award-winning novelist Joanna Kavenna and renowned Philosophy Professor and ethicist Simon Blackburn investigate the relationship between metaphysics and morality.
The AI Illusion
The world is awash with talk of AI. A third of all companies claim to be 'have implemented AI in some form', and more than two thirds in the UK and US. But critics argue this is marketing hype. Artificial Intelligence has not yet happened and there is no sign of it being about to happen. Luc Julia, Samsung's vice president of innovation has stated we have better machines than in the past but they don't involve an artificial form of intelligence.
Should we see the future in automation and machine learning and give up on AI? Might this make us feel less scared and more in control of the future? Or is the artificial intelligence revolution not only on its way but already here and changing our world radically for better or worse.
Astronomer Royal and author of On the Future Martin Rees, theoretical physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton, Closure theorist Hilary Lawson and computer scientist Kate Devlin explore the true promise of AI.
Beyond Material
The world is only material, only physical stuff - has for a century been the dominant view. Yet science has seemingly eradicated the physical in favour of fields and energy, mathematics and information. More radically quantum physics makes material reality itself unreachable. Meanwhile the intractable problem of how to generate consciousness from material alone is no closer to being solved.
Should we as a result embrace the immaterial, as a welcome end to the reductive dogmas of materialist philosophy? Offering an exciting future with the potential for other forms of being and understanding? Or is the immaterial, however understood, necessarily innaccessible, and of no value to our theories and our actions?
Philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright, chemist and naturalist Peter Atkins, and metaphysician Bernardo Kastrup investigate what the world’s made of.
Europe’s answer to TED
Total Politics
Press
