Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Identity politics: just skin deep?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Identity politics is ubiquitous in Western public life today and the subject of much vexed debate – and even something of a backlash. Many fear it threatens democracy, liberalism and free speech. However, its supporters suggest that the twenty-first-century identitarian is simply the latest version of those activists who demanded women’s or black liberation in the 1960s. Economic forecasts suggest unprecedented threats to livelihoods and prosperity, with material deprivation and immiseration a real possibility for millions. Yet many political activists seem more concerned with demands that our identities are acknowledged by others as core to who we are.
Left/right ideological political battles appear to have been usurped by internecine warfare between competitive personalised identities, checking each other’s privilege. As an ever-expanding number of groups demand that their specific ‘protected characteristics’ should be covered by equality legislation, it seems that the trend towards fragmentary identity is now a given way of fighting discrimination.
Yet many who are hostile to such ‘oppression Olympics’ – and happily lampoon, for example, the vast array of genders to choose from or change to – often ape this identitarian trend themselves. Take the way that championing the white working class – or complaining that they have been left behind – is so often a mirror image of the politicisation of racial identity and victimhood. In his book, The Identity Myth, David Swift claims the ‘right-wing invocation of “white working-class boys” is useful for culture war nonsense, but does not translate into a desire to ensure they are well fed’.
Can the politics of solidarity and the ideal of universalism survive a society divided into often competing and increasingly fragmented identity groups? Can the historical, more humanistic identities that once gave meaning to people’s lives – from institutions such as the family, class and nation to political movements for change – be reconstituted? Are critiques of identitarianism an overreaction to what might be understood as the self-empowerment of those previously marginalised excluded groups? Are we defined by the group we ‘belong’ to or do our experiences and choices make us who we are? What does identity mean today?
SPEAKERSShaun BaileyLondon-wide assembly member; former Conservative candidate for Mayor 2021; youth worker; co-founder, My Generation
Iona Italiaeditor-in-chief, Areo Magazine; author, Anxious Employment; host, Two for Tea podcast
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, The spiked podcast
David Swifthistorian; author, The Identity Myth and A Left for Itself
Peter Whittlefounder and director, New Culture Forum
CHAIRManick Govindaguest co-curator, Culture Tensions, Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw, Poland
 

I dissent! Challenging the culture of conformism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023, Sunday 29 October, Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the face of social, political and cultural malaise, dissenting voices are vital to clarify the issues at stake and create an invigorating public life. Yet we live in times where we are expected to follow the zeitgeist and conform to received wisdom – often handed down from on high.
During lockdown, for example, experts peddling The Science brooked little challenge, aided by a media sacrificing objectivity for obedience. In the Academy, intellectual conformity rules, built around impregnable ‘truths’ of environment, wellbeing or gender. The cultural avant-garde has given way to insidious current pressures and fashions – often enforced by cultural guardians. When the cultural outlook of record labels and book festivals is echoed by debankers and corporate apparatchiks, challenging new orthodoxies carries dangers. Even the once-cherished figure of the maverick is now largely silent in the face of cancel culture.
Yet many say that an anti-conformist spirit today is alive and kicking. The ‘transgressive’ type is lauded, driving new subcultures and promoting alternative ways of living. A new media landscape promotes any number of controversial figures promoting themselves as defiant rule-breakers and portrayers of truth. But are these ‘professional contrarians’ an antidote today’s conformism, or simply cynically manipulating the culture wars?
Some say self-proclaimed dissenters – for example, critics of ‘sheeple’ and ‘snowflakes’ or ‘herd belief’ – simply conform to their own tribe’s worldview. How can we avoid dissenters becoming as intolerant of anyone who doesn’t confirm to a prescriptive list of tick-box opinions said to represent the rebellious position? Can we, too, typecast allies as well as opponents?
Take the reaction to philosopher Kathleen Stock, admired by many for her gender critical views. But when she recently raised concerns about decriminalising abortion, she was howled down many of her erstwhile supporters who took personal offence at her views. Amongst those critics of intellectual silos and echo chambers, is there a danger that anti-conformity can also become a rallying cry for its own kind of groupthink?
In other eras, too, critical thought and dissent have been banished to the margins. In the paradigmatic Age of Conformity, an impasse in public life reflected the consumer culture of the postwar boom and a mood of political passivity. What are the drivers for today’s conformist impulse? And how do we revive the notion of genuine scepticism and dissent? Given that the dissenters of 1960s counterculture and their progeny now seem central to today’s unchallengeable orthodoxies of identity-driven, emotional and personal issues, do we now need a counter-counterculture? And if so, what does that mean for those keen to revive intellectual life?
What is dissent, why is it so important and why has it become devalued today? How does dissent differ from contrarianism? In a world that craves moral certainty and a sense of solidarity, but where words are commonly viewed as hurtful and dangerous to building consensus, how best can we make the case for speaking freely?
SPEAKERSDr Peter Boghossianfounding faculty fellow, University of Austin; executive director, National Progress Alliance; author, How to Have Impossible Conversations
Jennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Helen Joycedirector of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality
Lord MoylanConservative peer
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Fake news? The misinformation wars

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The most controversial legislation of this parliament is the Online Safety Bill. This vast and ever-expanding bill has for three years been subject to wrangling over new controls on harmful content and misinformation, powers that seek to make the UK ‘the safest place to be online in the world’.
A central aim is to tackle misinformation – whether in politicking and elections, war-related propaganda or global pandemics. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube are already increasingly censorious in cracking down on, for example, alleged Covid ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake’ reports such as Hunter Biden’s emails or on academics questioning the official line over Russia’s war with Ukraine. Now those services are to be further encouraged to cleanse their platforms of dissenting views or questionable information. Along with an unelected regulator, Ofcom, they’ll have powers to control what we can view, hear or read.
Many worry, rightly, over the consequences for free speech. Yet as many point out, whether related to paedophiles and grooming gangs, Pizzagate or the ‘Wuhan lab leak’, claims and counter-claims around misinformation can have important consequences for how we act and who we trust. Sometimes this has dramatic consequences, as in attacks on wireless towers and telecom engineers that followed 5G conspiracy stories. More broadly, algorithms that promote misinformed content can net billions of dollars while also fuelling distrust in civil society and democracy.
How can we solve the problem of misinformation? Does the online world of anonymity, falsehoods and harms now justify new controls? Where do the boundaries lie between disinformation and genuine disagreement? At a time when even fact checkers are thought to be biased, how do we create a basis for genuine debate when the quest for truth is disfigured by an atmosphere of mistrust?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSJessica Butcher MBEtech entrepreneur; co-founder, Tick.; co-founder, Blippar; commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commission
Laura Dodsworthwriter; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Bill Durodiéchair of International Relations, department of politics, languages and international studies, University of Bath
Mark Johnsonlegal and policy officer, Big Brother Watch
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

Andrew Doyle's Free Speech Nation: Live

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Join this special live recording of Free Speech Nation, Andrew Doyle’s weekly current affairs show on GB News. The aim of the show is to offer a mixture of light-hearted commentary and in-depth interviews on all aspects of what has come to be known as the ‘culture wars’. After the success of 2021, this second special episode of the show will be pre-recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival to be broadcast the following day.
Andrew will be joined by two comedian panellists who will take questions from the audience and grapple with the creeping authoritarianism of our time. He will be interviewing science writer Matt Ridley, and the show will also include a discussion with choreographer Rosie Kay and actor James Dreyfus on how they have been affected by ‘cancel culture’.
Previous guests on Free Speech Nation include: Matt Le Tissier, Carol Decker, Tommy Tiernan, Rob Schneider, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Andrew Sullivan, George Galloway, Ann Widdecombe, Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Christina Hoff Sommers and Graham Linehan.
SPEAKERS
James Dreyfusaward winning television, film and theatre actor
Josh Howiecomedian; writer and star, Josh Howie’s Losing It, BBC Radio 4; actor, Hapless; television critic, Jewish Chronicle
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD
Leo Kearsecomedian; writer, Breaking The News, Mock The Week and The Mash Report; co-creator, Hate 'n' Live
Matt Ridleyauthor, How Innovation Works; co-author Viral: the search for the origin of covid-19; former peer; fellow, Royal Society of Literature and the Academy of Medical Sciences
CHAIRAndrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters

Online safety vs free speech

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online?
The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss’s government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful’. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges’ – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators.
Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic’, to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they’re in full compliance to avoid penalties.
Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk’? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes’ are already protected by existing laws?
In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology.
Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology?
SPEAKERS
Lord Charles ColvilleCrossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer
Paddy Hannamresearcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry
Graham Smithtech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle
Toby Younggeneral secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Is Net Zero economic suicide?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July 2019, the Climate Change Act was amended to set a target of ‘net zero’ greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. In 2021, the government announced an interim target of cutting emissions by 78 per cent by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
While politicians talk about the need to revive the UK economy, that legal obligation is already being used by environmental organisation to stymie development. For example, in March this year, Friends of the Earth was given permission to take the government to court over its failure to set out how the carbon reduction targets will be met.
For critics of the policy, setting a target in law without new technologies that will allow the economy to grow, carbon-free, is a recipe for disaster. The upshot is bans on gas boilers, petrol-powered cars and more – with no cost-effective alternatives in place as yet. Former Conservative leadership contender Kemi Badenoch ruffled feathers when she said: ‘I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn’t bankrupt our economy.’
But supporters claim that a new ‘green economy’ will actually mean more jobs and more economic growth than a fossil-fuelled ‘business as usual’, with whole new routes for innovation and enormous work to be done changing society over to a new way of doing things.
Is Net Zero an economic disaster in the making or a vitally important goal that can enable us to remake the UK economy for the twenty-first century?
SPEAKERSRabina Khanwriter and commentator; former councillor and special advisor; author, My Hair Is Pink Under This Veil
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Andy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
Martin Wrightchair, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Is it the end of the road for the automobile?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The motorcar shaped so much of 20th-century social and cultural life, and came to symbolise Western prosperity and freedom. In the 21st century, however, the dream of the motorcar seems to be running out of gas.
For some campaigners and politicians today, the motorcar has come to symbolise selfish individualism, as well as social and environmental damage. In our towns and cities, restrictions such as Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), low-emission zones, 20mph speed limits and road charging are making driving increasingly impractical. Soaring fuel and running costs are pushing car ownership beyond the means of many ordinary people, particularly with proposed bans on petrol and diesel models on the horizon.
Yet the reality is that most people outside the south-east still drive to work. Life outside the biggest cities would be much harder – indeed, sometimes impossible – without access to a car. While many argue that electric cars are the future, the financial costs involved in transitioning to battery-powered vehicles are simply too much for most people to contemplate.
Have we really fallen out of love with the motorcar, or is it a vocal minority? Was mass personal transport a hubristic dream? Is it time to send the motorcar to the scrapyard, or is it possible still to make a positive case for car ownership for the future?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERS
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Hilton Hollowayfounder, 5054 magazine; automotive industry writer and specialist; future tech specialist
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
Nigel Ruddockaccountant and insolvency specialist; trustee, former head and chairman of automotive services, Grant Thornton;
CHAIRNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord

Internet vs the nation state: a new Wild West?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For decades, there has been concern about how individual states can control the forces of the world market – particularly against multinational corporations that have bigger revenues than many countries. This debate is especially acute when it comes to the internet, where the world’s most valuable companies (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix) operate on a global scale.
One area of concern is the regulation of content. Liberal democracies want to have some say in what is available online, such as extremist content or whether pornography is available to minors. But many argue that the tech giants are simply too big to be regulated by any one country.
Another bugbear has been tax, with big companies able to arrange their affairs to avoid paying their fair share by booking their profits in low-tax jurisdictions. However, critics of this outlook argue that there is nothing particular about the internet that prevents regulation or taxation – it is down to different countries to cooperate.
Is the nation state now redundant? With customer helplines and personalised interaction, do we relate more to online services than our own governments? How can big companies be held accountable if they operate beyond the rules of any particular country? Or are these fears overblown, with tech giants as dependent as any other company on national laws to defend their property and other rights?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERS
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Andrew Orlowskibusiness columnist, Daily Telegraph; founder, Think of X; assistant producer, All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace
Graham Smithtech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle
Dr Keith TeareCEO, Signalrank Corporation; Silicon-Valley-based serial entrepreneur
CHAIRSally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; board member, Lewes FC

Generation YouTube: a challenge to MSM?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When asked where they get their news from, an increasing number of people are likely to surprise you. Rather than reaching for a paper or turning on the television, a recent study found that YouTube reaches more people aged 18 to 49 than all linear TV networks combined. The success of cult figures like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan, who use long-form podcasts and videos on the site to explore contemporary political issues, seems to point to a desire for a different kind of media.
Some suggest that this trend goes beyond style, pointing to bigger questions about censorship and bias in the so-called ‘mainstream media’. Rows about failures of objectivity, started among those in both Left and Right camps, have become the norm. And yet, a YouGov poll conducted during the height of lockdown measures seemed to show resilience among viewers, with 47 per cent of people expressing ‘trust in BBC News journalists to tell the truth’. Although mainstream news outlets such as Sky News, CNN and ABC enjoy their services being included on YouTube, it is in fact individual YouTubers who outreach them in viewership, subscribers and overall content. Extolling the virtues of free speech and open debate seems to be popular, with many punters arguing that the need to search for alternative media is fuelled by a stifling conformity among traditional channels.
How long will the YouTube boom last? With a focus on misinformation and calls for regulation now a key feature of the modern news landscape, can a truly independent media survive? Could the snobbishness around sites like YouTube be challenged by a new and exciting mode of political engagement? Or is this all just a storm in an online teacup?
SPEAKERS
Callum Breesefreelance writer
Baroness Stowellchair, Communications & Digital Select Committee
Mahyar Tousipolitical YouTuber, MT Media
CHAIROli Fosterbroadcast journalist, GB News

For frack’s sake: how do we solve the energy crisis?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Right across Europe, energy supplies are under enormous pressure. A combination of pandemic inflation, lockdown disruptions and Russia’s war on Ukraine has sent energy prices soaring, with reserves running low as we head into winter. Over half a century has passed since Britain opened its first nuclear power station – so why today are we still struggling to meet our energy needs?
Environmentalists argue that the blame lies with our reliance on fossil fuels – and so demand a rapid switch to renewables like wind power. Yet, critics of Net Zero policies argue that renewables are unreliable and still require on the flexible backup of fossil-fuel energy. Even worse, those policies – and long-standing environmentalist opposition – have diverted attention from proven clean energy sources like nuclear. At the same time, arguments continue over whether the UK should exploit its significant reserves of shale gas.
As energy prices skyrocket, most debates focus on the financial support that households might need to pay their bills. But how can we stop such rises in the first place, and provide affordable, reliable energy today and in the future? Is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions still the primary goal, even if energy becomes more expensive? Are new technologies on the horizon, like nuclear fusion, that can save the day?
SPEAKERSTom Heapenvironment broadcaster, Countryfile, Panorama, Costing the Earth; presenter, The Climate Show with Tom Heap; author,  39 Ways to Save the Planet
Dr Caspar Hewettlecturer and degree programme director, Water Group, EuroAquae+, School of Engineering, Newcastle University; director, The Great Debate
Laurie Laybournresearcher; writer; associate fellow, Institute for Public Policy Research; co-author, Planet on Fire: A manifesto for the age of environmental breakdown
Jordan Tyldesleyjournalist and commentator
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas

Dick pics and Tinderella: are dating apps the end of romance?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Once online dating carried a taboo. But now you cannot move for a new innovative app – like Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Thursday and Grindr – catering for every possible niche. Over the past five years, dating apps have exploded. Now, an estimated 323million people worldwide use them, while stories of fairy-tale romances and horrific first dates abound.
Are dating apps a good thing? Many exalt the liberating effect of online dating. Whereas previously a singleton could only talk to two or three people in a bar on any particular night, now you can interact with hundreds of potential partners, from around the world, from the comfort of your own home. Others are more critical, claiming dating apps create the mindset that there is always something better at the next swipe. Critics argue that such an ephemeral approach means people are less willing to commit and work on relationships for the long-term, ultimately contributing to an increasingly atomised world.
Are dating apps ushering in a new, dystopian romantic landscape in which sex is the result of an algorithm? Or is the increased choice a boon for the individual? Are we swiping right for a new age of sexual liberation or swiping left on a technological innovation that is pulling us further apart?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Weekly Sceptic; co-host, The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
Madeline Grantcolumnist, assistant comment editor and parliamentary sketchwriter, Telegraph; former editorial manager, Institute of Economic Affairs
Dr Zoe Strimpelhistorian; British Academy research fellow, University of Warwick; columnist, Sunday Telegraph; author, What the Hell Is He Thinking?, The Man Diet and Seeking Love in Modern Britain
Dr Keith TeareCEO, Signalrank Corporation; Silicon-Valley-based serial entrepreneur
CHAIRAdam Rawcliffedirector of partnerships, Spectator; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Climate emergency: catastrophe or catastrophising?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Our contemporary period is often portrayed as a smorgasbord of crises – from Covid to energy, the cost of living to mental health. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said earlier this year: ‘To put it simply, we are facing a crisis on top of a crisis.’ But one crisis seems to trump them all: the environmental crisis.
Today, droughts and floods are equally described as ‘biblical’, scientists warn that we are approaching an ‘ecological catastrophe’, and the UN secretary-general claims that we are facing ‘collective suicide’. Greta Thunberg demands that we panic.
Are we really entering the ‘end of days’? Others worry that this focus on environmental catastrophe is creating new crises. While Extinction Rebellion youth activists continue to fret about the end of the world, the American Psychological Association has identified a condition in young people that represents ‘a chronic fear of environmental doom’. And if changing weather events, such as heatwaves and lack of rain result in demands to adopt New Normal restrictions on economic activity, how can we escape cost of living and energy crises we face today?
Many environmentalists insist that the crisis is one of over-consumption, over-production and over-development at the expense of Mother Nature. Yet arguably, the developing world is in crisis because of a lack of those things. Are environmental concerns a response to a crisis or the cause of one?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party; author, Why Vote Green 2015
Orsolya Kovács-MagosiPhD student and junior researcher, Corvinus University of Budapest; researcher, Climate Policy Institute (CPI)
Martin Powellhead of sustainability, Siemens Inc; former mayoral advisor on the environment; editor, The Climate City
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulosvisiting fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; instructor, Ayn Rand University; author, Identity Politics and Tribalism: the new culture wars
CHAIRAustin Williamssenior lecturer, Dept of Architecture, Kingston University, London; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution: understanding Chinese eco-cities

Biometrics and facial recognition

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Biometrics is used by a wide range of institutions and organisations – from police forces and building access to bank security and airport customs. Unlocking your smartphone with your face uses biometric facial recognition technology. Many of us now willingly trade the convenience of a world without passwords, fobs, or endless security checks by giving up a degree of our personal data.
Ever since the police started using fingerprint technology, biometrics has undergone many advances. Yet each innovation causes more privacy concerns. For example, surveillance cameras can now easily identify someone using just the shape of their face or the gait of their walk, often with no prior consent or knowledge. While both private and public organisations that use such technology argue that they are keeping us safe, how this vast amount of data is stored and shared between different agencies (or used again in different contexts) is seldom done with any degree of public accountability.
Critics also point out that biometric technology isn’t always reliable – make-up, a hoodie or a Covid mask can throw it off. Some of the data can be biased. For example, people with darker skin tones and young females can be disadvantaged, while the datasets that are used to ‘train’ the technology can often be unrepresentative of the population.
But are these problems to do with the technology itself, or rather how it is being used? Are opponents of such tech simply luddites – after all, the pandemic gave biometrics an added boost, with fewer reasons to touch or handle things. Is the issue about accountability, and how much privacy we will give up for more security in an uncertain world? And if things like facial recognition technology might make everyone more secure, is it worth the costs?
SPEAKERSSilkie Carlodirector, Big Brother Watch
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Simon Evanscomedian; regular host, Headliners; presenter, BBC Radio 4's Simon Evans Goes to Market
Robin TombsCEO and co-founder, Yoti; co-founder and former finance director, Gamesys; co-founder, ZING
Dr Stuart Waitonsenior lecturer, sociology and criminology, Abertay University; author, Scared of the Kids: curfews crime and the regulation of young people
CHAIRMartyn Perksdigital business consultant and writer; former Islington by-election independent candidate; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation

Ulysses at 100: Have we lost in faith modernist man?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
James Joyce’s Ulysses was first published in Paris on 2 February 1922. At the time, it was seen as the most infamously obscene book in ancient or modern literature. It was the novel of modernism – an artistic period that was the break between the nineteenth century and the bridge to the barbarism of the 1930s.
What was the modernist man? Above all, he embraced freedom – he dared to know. He was free of the social conformities, the conventional morality, the control over human feelings that he saw as part of nineteenth-century European culture. The modernist man was in the search for truth about himself. There was no communication with others – every human being was imprisoned by a unique consciousness understood only by themselves. In the early twentieth century, the disregard for the old and the investigation of the new and the self was explosive and created different ways of looking and exploring man.
TS Eliot wrote in The Wasteland: ‘The awful daring of a moment’s surrender / Which an age of prudence can never retract / By this, and only this, we have existed.’ Is this the only thing that gives us meaning?
But did Ulysses burn all before it? Did the modernists’ agenda of critiquing and distancing themselves from every traditional idea that had been held sacred by Western civilisation mean that the post-modernist man has nothing to hold onto? What happens when the subjective is all? When the modernist agenda of no control or no connection to the past, is the mainstream not the marginal?
SPEAKERSMary Kennyjournalist; playwright; author, The Way We Were: Catholic Ireland since 1922 and Something of Myself - and Others; columnist, Irish Independent Magazine
Mark Ryancompany director; performer, The Godot Company; performer of one-man-monologue, Finnegans Wake; author, War and Peace in Ireland
Helen Searlschief operating officer, Feature Story News; founder, Washington Hyenas book club; Ulysses enthusiast
Justin Smythtranslator; tour-guide of Joycean Dublin; head of library service, Saint John of God Research Foundation; co-founder, Dublin Salon
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

Too fat, too thin, are we too obsessed with calories?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From 1 April 2022, new regulations were introduced forcing businesses with 250 or more employees to display calories on their menus, including children’s menus. The government says this will help people make healthier, informed choices when ordering food. Obesity is one of the greatest long-term health challenges this country has faced, according to the government, with 28 per cent of adults classified as obese.
However, others argue that calorie counts, along with children being weighed at school from the age of five, encourage an unhealthy mindset towards food which could lead to and worsen eating disorders – already a serious health problem. In March, for example, the NHS reported treating record numbers of children and young people for eating disorders.
In a world where people are constantly told that if they are not attractive, they are not valuable, why would we make it easier for them to obsess over their diets and bodies? Are such rules valuable help when making food choices or are we heading towards a future where we eat by number, not for flavour and fuel? Will these policies improve health or encourage obsession?
SPEAKERSKatie Axepaediatric nursing student, University of Leeds
Emma Burnellfounder and political consultant, Political Human; journalist; playwright, No Cure For Love and Triggered
Dr Jennifer Cunninghamretired community paediatrician
CHAIRDr Ruth Mieschbuehlersenior lecturer in education studies, Institute of Education, University of Derby; author, The Racialisation of Campus Relations