Cato Event Podcast

A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Scientists and citizens often focus on the dark side of our biological heritage, such as our capacity for aggression, cruelty, prejudice, and self‐​interest. But natural selection has also given us a suite of beneficial social features, including our capacity for love, friendship, cooperation, and teaching.Beneath all our inventions—our tools, farms, machines, cities, nations—we carry with us innate proclivities to make such a good society. Indeed, our genes affect not only our bodies and behaviors, but also the ways in which we make societies, and therefore ones that are surprisingly similar worldwide.Using many wide‐​ranging examples— including diverse historical and contemporary cultures, communities formed in the wake of shipwrecks, commune dwellers seeking utopia, online groups of both people and artificially intelligent bots, and even the tender and complex social arrangements of elephants and dolphins that so resemble our own—Christakis demonstrates that, despite a human history replete with violence, we cannot escape our social blueprint for goodness.In a world of increasing political and economic polarization, it’s tempting to ignore the positive role of our evolutionary past. But Christakis shows how and why evolution has placed us on a humane path—and how we are united by our common humanity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Even before Donald Trump’s election, foreign policy thinkers were beginning to realize that American grand strategy had to change. After more than 15 years of war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Americans’ enthusiasm for foreign adventures had expired and many believed that public support for traditional American leadership of the liberal international order had expired along with it. The big question was: What would come next?During the third year of the Trump administration, the 2020 Democratic candidates have offered a range of arguments about what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy today and where it should be headed. Some of these hew fairly close to the traditional, pre‐​Trump approach, while others represent more significant departures from the status quo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Needle exchange programs are a proven means of reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users. They are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general of the United States, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, needle exchange programs are legally permitted to operate in only 30 states and the District of Columbia. Drug paraphernalia laws make them illegal elsewhere.Critics of needle exchange programs claim they “enable” or “endorse” illicit drug use. “Not-in-my-backyard” attitudes fuel opposition in local communities. Experts will discuss the efficacy and role of this harm-reduction strategy as well as the political challenges to its widespread adoption. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2005 John Ioannidis of Stanford University published a paper with the dramatic title of “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” Dismayingly, we now know that he was right. In Scientocracy we explore how science has gone wrong and illustrate it with examples from nutrition, radiation, climate, and other branches of research. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.