Gold Coast Lively Minds Club

Join us to discuss who is shaping the minds of the next generation, and according to whose values.

In her recent book Mindless, Dr Bella d'Abrera, a researcher at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, argues that schools across Australia, the UK and the United States have quietly shifted their focus away from knowledge, skills and intellectual formation, and towards political and social activism. She contends that gender ideology, climate politics, identity theory and social justice causes have been woven into virtually every subject, from maths and physics to art and music, and that this has happened largely without parents noticing or consenting.

Her critics argue that teaching children about the world as they perceive it (including questions of identity, environment and social fairness), is not indoctrination but good education.

Each person will be asked to share their views on the following questions:
1. Should schools focus primarily on academic knowledge and core skills, or do they have a broader role in shaping values and social awareness?
2. Where should the line be drawn between teaching children to think critically and steering them towards particular conclusions?
3. Who should ultimately decide what children are taught, and how much say should parents have versus governments and educators?

This discussion is intended to spark opposing views, so we ask participants to respectfully debate ideas by listening, challenging each other with reason, and staying open-minded.

Please consider purchasing a snack or meal from the venue, to facilitate future bookings and priority for the group.

As numbers are limited and the events are often full, please be mindful of changing your rsvp as soon as possible if you are no longer able to attend so that someone else can take your spot.

Join us to discuss how can we still be truly ourselves when so much of what we do every day feels like performing for other people. It might not just be social media that’s the problem. It could be part of human nature itself.

Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre believed we are constantly playing roles for others, something he called “bad faith,” where we pretend to be something we’re not just to meet expectations.

Sociologist Erving Goffman compared everyday life to a theatre performance, with a polished front stage and a more honest backstage. In our hyper-connected world today, that pressure to perform feels stronger than ever.

This question goes far beyond social media. It’s really about whether we can close the gap between who we are and who we show the world, and whether that gap even matters anymore.

Each participant will be asked to share their views on the following questions:

1. Do you think most people are performing more than they are being real? If so, what does that cost us in our personal lives and relationships? Feel free to share any examples from your own experience.
2. What are some ways we can become more authentic in a world that rewards performance?

Please consider purchasing a snack or meal from the venue, to facilitate future bookings and priority for the group.

As numbers are limited and the events are often full, please be mindful of changing your RSVP as soon as possible if you can no longer attend so someone else can take your spot.

Much of the disagreement is not over whether the climate is changing, but over what is causing it, how certain the evidence is, and what policies we should follow.
The case for CO₂: Mainstream scientists argue that burning fossil fuels is adding extra CO₂ to the atmosphere, making it one of the main drivers of climate change. They believe past warm periods began because of natural changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun, with rising CO₂ then amplifying the warming. A vast body of scientific research supports this view, leading many to say that the "science is settled". However critics argue that research funding largely follows government priorities focused on achieving “net zero”, making it harder for alternative explanations including changes in solar activity, long-term ocean cycles and cloud patterns to receive equal attention.
The case for scepticism: Independent scientists argue that CO₂ levels have been much higher throughout much of Earth's history than they are today, and that all six major ice ages began when CO₂ levels were far above current levels. They question how CO₂ could have such a significant effect when it makes up only 0.043% of Earth's atmosphere, and human emissions account for only 5% of the CO₂ exchanged with the atmosphere each year. They also point to ice core records showing that CO₂ in the past has been mainly a result of warming rather than its cause, and that for the past 3 million years CO₂ has remained relatively stable during dramatic climate fluctuations. However critics argue that Earth's past cannot be directly compared with today because climate conditions were different. They also contend that while CO₂ may have followed the initial warming, it subsequently amplified it through natural feedbacks.

Some have concluded that the interpretation of climate evidence often depends on the assumptions and models used to analyse it.

So given the economic costs of net zero policies, the practical challenge of reducing emissions while global emissions remain high, and the environmental risks of delaying action, should governments continue zealously pursuing net zero, or should they proceed more cautiously while the scientific debate continues?

Each participant will be invited to share their views on the following questions:

1. What do you think is driving today's climate change? Are human CO₂ emissions the main cause, or could natural factors such as the Sun, oceans and cloud patterns play a much larger role?
2. Should governments continue pursuing net zero policies based on the current scientific consensus, or is there sufficient uncertainty to justify a more cautious approach while encouraging continued research and open scientific debate?

Please consider purchasing a snack or meal from the venue, to facilitate future bookings and priority for the group.

As numbers are limited and the events are often full, please be mindful of changing your rsvp as soon as possible if you are no longer able to attend so that someone else can take your spot.