Open to Debate

How long would you like to live, and could science and technology make it possible?  Longevity science aims to extend our healthy years through advancements in CRISPR, cellular reprogramming, and drug development. While private companies and philanthropists invest heavily in these innovations, should the government be responsible for funding these efforts? Those who say yes to government funding say that longevity research could revolutionize public health, keep aging populations productive in the workforce, and reduce the economic burden of age-related illnesses. Those opposed to public funding of longevity science say that true life extension beyond a decade might be unachievable, and it will take years before results are measurable. They argue that when and if these advances become available, they may only be for a smaller, affluent population. They also argue that long-known behavior choices like good nutrition and sleep should be adopted by all now, instead of chasing uncertain longevity advancements.     With this context, we debate the question: Could Longevity Science Extend Your Health Span By Decades? Should the Government Fund It?   Arguing Yes: Peter Diamandis, Founder and Chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation; Announced the XPRIZE Healthspan Competiton; Author of "Longevity Guidebook"    Arguing No: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Bioethicist; Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure?    Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America”       Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford    Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some scientific studies have shown evidence that psychedelic drugs, when used in controlled therapeutic settings, may help patients with their mental health — but should they be recommended by your doctor? Those advocating for psychedelic use argue that it could be a welcome relief for patients who don’t respond to traditional medicine. Those against its use argue we don’t yet understand their long-term effects. Now we debate: Psychedelics for Mental Health: Help or Hype?    Arguing Help: Ismail Ali, Director of Policy and Advocacy at MAPS  Arguing Hype: Kevin Sabet, President and CEO at the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions    Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From economic turbulence and the dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence to the big-picture challenges of our time, the pillars of money, truth, and power shape the complex global landscape. In partnership with the Future Investment Initiative (FII), join us as twelve of the world’s greatest thinkers debate: “Clash of the Titans: Three Grand Challenges Facing Humanity,” “What is Europe’s Economic Outlook?”, and “Will AI-Generated Entertainment Replace Human Creativity?”  Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan, Open to Debate CEO Clea Conner, and moderator and journalist Edie Lush moderate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices