Intelligence Squared

President Jimmy Carter is a Nobel Prize winner, author, humanitarian, professor, farmer, naval officer and carpenter. In this special Intelligence² interview with Jon Snow from Channel 4 News at the Royal Festival Hall, President Carter will talk about his career as president, and the past three decades as a senior statesman and ambassador for the Carter Center. Jimmy Carter was U.S. President from 1977 to 1981. His administration's main foreign policy achievements include the Panama Canal treaties, the Camp David Accords, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union, and the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. After stepping down, he decided to establish the Carter Center along with his wife Rosalynn in 1982 to wage peace, fight disease and build hope worldwide. He was a pioneer in what has now become the widespread practice of putting prestige and status to good use in the world. The Center’s programmes have operated in 76 countries to resolve conflicts, advance democracy, human rights and economic opportunity, prevent disease, improve mental health care and teach farmers to increase crop production

We assume that democracy is what every country should have. But what has democracy done for India? Easy. It has stimulated corruption on a massive scale, and if you want to get rich in India the most direct way is to run for parliament and reap the payoffs businesses are obliged to make to the local MP. Caste, that Indian curse, becomes more entrenched as politicians exploit caste allegiances to win votes. Bombay may be booming but it’s hardly Shanghai. A country that is striving to be an economic powerhouse is being pulled down by its political system. Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel. So say the pundits but what would they put in democracy’s place? Would they prefer India to be ruled by a Mubarak or an Indian version of the Beijing politburo? Democratic politics is always messy and often corrupt but it is the inevitable price of seeking the will of the people, which will always be preferable to the will of the dictator

Two wheels, a frame, and two pedals. Nothing could be simpler than a bicycle. People start cycling for practical reasons or for fun but before they know it, it's become a passion, an obsession, a career, an instrument of self-torture. It's an antiquated mode of transport, and yet hundreds of thousands take it up every year in Britain. Clean, green and cheap, it can turn your journey from A to B into a flight of inspiration, give you a sense of speed, grace and limitless potential, and add a frisson of danger to your otherwise humdrum existence. Intelligence² are bringing together the most articulate amateurs and professionals from the world of cycling to celebrate the endeavour and endurance, the risk and reward of this extraordinary partnership between man and machine. Taking part will be: Bella Bathurst, author of "The Bicycle Book", who will introduce us to the diverse and unpredictable world of the bicycle with stories from the past and quirky anecdotes from her more recent observations. Vin Cox, record holder for circumnavigating the globe by bike, will argue that the bicycle is the fastest and slowest form of transport you'll ever need. Geoff Dyer, novelist and keen amateur cyclist, will discuss how photography can capture the romantic allure of two-wheeled bliss – and nowhere is that bliss more ecstatically displayed than at the Burning Man festival in Nevada. Patrick Field, founder of the London School of Cycling who’ll be proposing a city cycling manifesto for the 21st century. Graeme Obree, Scottish cyclist who twice broke the world hour record on a home-made bicycle who'll be talking about design and innovation. Will Self, writer and keen amateur cyclist who’ll expand on his love of the bicycle’s purity and simplicity

Let’s face it, Al-Qaeda was never a proper enemy. It was and is a terrorist organisation, not a nation state, and the right way to deal with terrorists is vigilance and high-grade intelligence. Declaring war on them only fuels the flames of hatred and violence. That’s the standard charge laid against the administration of George W. Bush. But it neglects the realities of 9/11, which was itself a declaration of war. And besides, Al-Qaeda had essentially merged itself with a government – the Afghan Taleban – and its capacity to disrupt the muslim world was and remains a threat that requires aggressive counteraction, not a bunch of policemen back home looking at screens. For all the cost in money and lives, the Iraq invasion toppled a tyrant and brought its people democracy, however imperfectly. Left alone in their hiding places in Pakistan and Yemen, the militants of Al-Qaeda will continue their training and plotting and America is quite right to be stepping up its drone and jet attacks against them. That’s what the defenders of the war on terror say. Come to the debate and see if you agree

Cast your mind back five years to 2006, to when environmentalism gripped the world. We were all shocked into buying different lightbulbs by the apocalyptic forecasts of the Stern report, and Al Gore, with the aid of an array of impressive scatter charts, was King Green. It seemed that we were all on course to become bona fide tree huggers. But it hasn’t quite happened – not yet at least – and if anything, the public appetite for the fight against global warming seems to be waning. In the current economic gloom, everyone seems to have reverted to their more immediate priorities; we’re happy to wallow in the reassuring belief that consumption drives growth, as we click “confirm” on another short haul flight. So perhaps we’re now suffering from environmental fatigue, and perhaps we’re fed up with being lectured to by a bunch of lentil-munching cyclists. Have the eco-warriors pushed us too far in their attempt to amend our ways? Have we discovered that, when all is said and done, we’re just not that bothered about rising tides in the Maldives? Of course, there are those who dissent from the consensus that we’re headed towards a catastrophe, and advise us to ignore the people they feel are doom-mongers peddling pseudoscience. How then, should the threat of global warming influence our behaviour? Should we heed the warnings of floods, droughts, burning forests and a world of environmental refugees and change our ways? Or should we maintain that we’re not going to allow the polar bears and our grandchildren to ruin our lives while we rev up our engines and revel in and the pleasures of unabated consumption

We live in a time when the Internet and a forever flowering industry of gadgets and machinery has allowed humans to interact and share ideas with untold speed, reach and intimacy. Technological innovation is not only the bedfellow of the economic growth which we need, but also offers our best shot at tackling today’s biggest challenges: climate change; poverty; despotism. At least, this is what the tech-topians and cyber-lovers would have you believe. But whilst they’ve been queuing to get their hands on the latest iPad, another breed – of slow cooking, off-grid, deep-thinking back-to-basics types – have been pushing their vision of how the world should work. They feel that people today are too busy staring at the computer screen to see what’s going on around them, that children are ignoring the real world in favour of computer games, that family and work life is being blurred by BlackBerrys, that our ability to focus has been corroded by endless tweets and ‘Urgent’ emails. So, do we live in a world which is dangerously addicted to being ‘switched on’? Are Twitter and Facebook a threat to our privacy? Should the unbridled advancement of all things robotic, electronic and web-based be reigned in before it tears at the very foundations of civilisation

Modern radical thinker Slavoj Žižek spoke on the 1st July 2011 as part of the ‘Great Minds’ series, and affirmed his status as a great mind of modern philosophy and social, cultural and political theory. Starbucks, social solidarity and self-commodification were among the varied and enlightening topics touched upon by Žižek, all grounded by his interpretation of ideology and its continuing importance. One of Europe’s foremost Marxist theorists, Žižek criticised modern leftist groups who, he argued, didn’t really know how to cope with the upheaval of the ‘sublime’ moment (revelation that an assumed state of total happiness is actually non-existent). The question of ‘what happens next’ has been asked since the dwindling exhaustion of modernism into postmodernism. Žižek asks us to put ideological pressure on modern life, confirming the presence of ideological symbolism even in blatant popular culture (such as two Oscar-winning films, The King’s Speech and Black Swan [2010]). His manner was sometimes serious, sometimes comic and vaguely apocalyptic (he is a self confessed pessimist), which all together made for an engaging talk, dense in historical, anecdotal and political references. The combination of issues allowed the modern audience member to examine their own behaviour alongside Hegelian optimism, Freudian self-commodification and Marxist ideas of social roles, in a non ‘academic’ sense, referring to the purchasing of Starbucks coffee as a subconscious purchasing of social solidarity built into the price. An audience member asks ‘isn’t it the case that people know that what they’re doing is buying a coffee that will then, in some sort of self-serving way, make them feel better about themselves?’, thus showing that ideology is no longer a ‘smokescreen’ of sorts. Žižek answers by claiming that we follow things, knowing that they are ideologies, and this does not necessarily make them ‘right’ or true. This is where the notion of ideology seems to be headed; to a total self consciousness – as with a Hegelian resolution of the ‘Zeitgeist’ (Žižek is actually close to the publishing of an 800 page book on Hegel). In his relatively brief talk, Slavoj Žižek managed to expose our susceptibility to certain ideologies, thus proving their ever present role in modern society - not bad for a Friday night in West London, perhaps the capital of the British bourgeoisie

Ten years after 9/11 a new era of beginnings and endings is upon us. The Arab Awakening and Bin Laden’s death, the rise of China, the perils of Pakistan and emergence of Africa, the power of social media and the promise of a new global order all herald a world remade. In this special Intelligence² event, former Foreign Secretary David Miliband and other leading experts from Oxford Analytica, the global strategic analysis and advisory firm, will chart the tumultuous path since September 11th and show how it will shape tomorrow’s volatile global order. Why did the hunt for Osama bin Laden take so long? Is counterterrorism counterproductive? Have the “Wars of 9/11” been worth the money and lives expended? What has their effect been on the Middle East and the Muslim world? How have Russia and China responded and, in Beijing’s case, managed to strengthen its geopolitical standing during the decade following the attack

Museums are our new churches, as is commonly agreed. Millions of people flock to them to be uplifted, inspired, or distracted from everyday cares for an hour or two by encountering magnificent art. But while churches know exactly how to present art in order to foster faith and remind us of the Christian virtues, couldn't our museums do a better job at displaying art in a way that fully engages our emotions? Aren’t all those academic categories – “the 19th century”, “the Northern Italian School” – dry and dull? Aren't museums just places where great art goes to die? Why can't museums organize their collections in such a way as to convey art’s life-enhancing possibilities and even inspire us to become better people? But isn't that taking the "art as religion" line a bit too seriously? It implies that museums have a social function, even a didactic role to play. Do we want to visit museums in order to be told by invisible curators to think and feel in a certain way? And while it may be the case that religious art was created to instruct the minds and improve the souls of the congregation, can that be said of modern art whose purpose is to challenge, question or shock the viewer? And don’t ever soaring visitor numbers prove that our museums are already doing a brilliant job

Let’s face it, the French are more clear-headed on certain issues than the English. On marriage, for a start. It’s not that they have anything against it – on the contrary, their discretion when taking a lover is intended to preserve the institution's many virtues. But restrict all one’s sexual energies to just one person? Sacre bleu! "Si vous cherchez la fidelité, achetez un chien." Or so our cousins across the Channel like to have it. But are they fooling themselves? Is it possible truly to love your wife on Sunday, if on Monday you’re sleeping with your mistress? Come and hear the arguments from the Canadian owner of a dating agency for married people, a best-selling Australian author and comic talents from Iran and Britain as they debate just who is fooling whom

Why are there so many Chinese maths and music prodigies? Because Chinese mothers believe schoolwork and music practice come first, that an A-minus is a bad grade, that sleepovers, TV and computer games should never be allowed and that the only activities their children should be permitted to do are ones in which they can eventually win a medal – and that medal must be gold. These methods certainly seem to get results, so perhaps western parents should start being more pushy with their children. But is it defensible to cajole and bully one's offspring to success? Isn't it better to be raising happy, rounded individuals rather than burnt-out brainboxes? Who's right and who's wrong? Come and hear the arguments presented by Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, set to be one of the most talked about books of 2011, and on the opposite side Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, the phenomenally successful parenting website

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/tales-from-the-deep This event, part of the Project Ocean series, took place at Selfridges, on 2nd June. An evening of true stories of passion, adventure and disaster told by four very different ocean-going explorers. David de Rothschild will talk about his mission on board Plastiki, Surfers against Sewage champion Chris Hines will relate his journey from beach bum to MBE, Philip Hoare, author of Leviathan or, The Whale will explain his fascination for the giant mammals of the ocean, and Willie MacKenzie will tell stories from the frontline of Greenpeace.

The pioneering work done by the scientists at the Oxford Martin School promises to transform our world – to prolong our life-spans, enhance our brains, conquer food scarcity and solve the climate change problem. How do they propose to take us to this Brave New World and what nasty surprises might they unleash as they prise open Pandora’s box? In this conference, organised jointly by the Oxford Martin School and Intelligence Squared, four of the school’s most brilliant experts will be showcasing their vision of the future before addressing challenges from you, the audience, about the potential perils that such visions may bring with them. After a scene-setting presentation by Dr Ian Goldin, in which he will lay out a vision for the world in 2020, the evening will be divided in to two halves: TRANSFORMING HUMANS Why accept frailty as part of the human condition when science is poised to keep us healthy and sane? Dr Bennett Foddy will present the case for biological enhancement of the human body. Should we embrace therapeutic cloning and genetic manipulation so that we can live longer and healthier lives, or is this eugenics by another name? As for the human brain, Professor Gero Miesenböck will tell us how his cutting-edge work in the new science of optogenetics – developing genetic strategies for observing and controlling the function of brain circuits with light – can help us understand our brains and potentially manipulate them. What are the ethical problems we’ll be facing if these visions of ‘mind control’ are fulfilled? TRANSFORMING THE ENVIRONMENT No less revolutionary are the ideas being put forward to transform the world in which we live. Professor Liam Dolan will be arguing that new techniques for manipulating crop genes hold the key to increasing yields and alleviating concerns about global food security. Professor Gideon Henderson will explain how the global warming problem could be solved by manipulating the natural system of the oceans to make them take up more carbon. GM crops. Altering the patterns of nature. Are these our route to survival or will we be unleashing unstoppable changes in the environment that we – or future generations – may live to regret

“Even before it began, Europe’s moment as a major world power in the 21st century looks to be over.” So says Richard Haass, President of New York’s influential Council on Foreign Relations. And you can see where he’s coming from. The “no” votes on the EU constitution in 2005, the subsequent rise of nationalist and centre-right governments across Europe, the grudging bailout of Greece, the fumbled bailout of Ireland and all the sharp divisions exposed by the financial crisis. Europe? What Europe? In any case the Germans have got what they wanted – reunification – and feel increasingly disenchanted with the bargain they had to make to get it – accepting the euro. But that which does not kill us makes us stronger. And if Europe does survive the euro crisis it could well be that its leaders will strengthen economic policy coordination across the EU to ensure there’s no repeat performance – a fresh impetus for the dream of Europe. Pie in the sky? Come to the debate and see what a former French president and five other big hitters have to say on the issue

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" So wrote William Wordsworth at the start of the French Revolution, and that spirit of euphoria still broadly infects the young people who massed in their tens of thousands in Egypt and Tunisia to oust their hated rulers. But in countries with no tradition of democracy, where corruption is entrenched and jobs are scarce, the political and economic aspirations of these youthful revolutionaries are likely to be disappointed. Add to that the fact that the Islamists are far better organised than the liberal groups and are set to come out on top in the forthcoming elections, and things begin to look very gloomy indeed. But is this view all too pessimistic? The fundamental barrier of fear has been removed and the new democrats are mobilising themselves to make sure that the benefits of change trickle down to all. There's even talk of a possible split amongst the Islamists between the reactionary old guard and a more open-minded younger generation. As one of the two young Egyptians taking part in this debate will argue, if their demands aren't met, "the Egyptian masses know their way back to Tahrir Square!"