With respect to hesitancy to adopt new models and methods re climate change snd general conservation, full honestly and full rationality combined may not be the bullet, because even if we aren’t fully honest or fully rational as creatures, those concerns can be and often are.

It’s not really an issue of ignoring climate change( or any problem) but a rational and honest conclusion about the limits of ones own ability, circumstance, and effect. This seems to be another example of lumping bad outcomes as non-reason.

Of wishfully thinking that relative reason has the ability to change the field of play rather than altering how we move in it. Of irrationally excluding the possibility that we’re looking at an exclusively sub optimal outcome field.

I’d hesitate to say that we could solve climate change tomorrow, even if we were fully rational and everyone wanted to/ but let’s say that we could. Let’s say that we could, but also acknowledge that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. So sure, we could fix it, at massive cost in human well-being and life. Is that not something that deserves rational consideration?

Do rational human beings, weighing human well being and earths well being, have to side with earths well being over our own? Is there no possible way that what’s good for us is bad for the earth? Why wouldn’t a fully rational species strip this planet to bones and use those resources to solve what problems then arise?

Because as u mentioned before, there needs to be skin in the game. Seems the wants of an individual, usually trump the needs of the many, especially when the many are a future possible state.

An additional problem is that some factors have no rational default. Short term or long term? High risk or low risk? Me or others? Cheat or play fair?

Could u give an example of something that would have no rational default?

(July 18, 2021 at 4:57 pm)tackattack Wrote: Could u give an example of something that would have no rational default?

I gave four of them.

Perhaps then I’m not understanding what you mean by rational default? I see for instance shirt or long term as two different goals therefore two different lines of reason. They may be in conflict but they are separately each rational. Then I need to prioritize do I solve the short term or the long term goal in this moment. I could rationalize all kind of short term gains, till I felt satiated enough to tackle a long term action, which might be the exact opposite of my actions for the short term goal. Both equally rational both justified, both beneficial to whatever the goal to benefit was. It is rational to serve your short term and long term goals so I guess I’m missing what you’re calling “no rational default”.

I would say that rational scrutiny could be applied to the problem of "Should I prioritize [these short term goals] at the expense of [these long term goals]?" Why can't reason be a mediating factor there?

ie. "It is reasonable to continue burning some coal to help us meet our short term energy goals, and keep our economy afloat. But (to combat climate change) we ought to aggressively reduce the amount of coal we burn and pursue other means of energy production that will produce less emissions."

The rational default is to make rational short term decisions and rational long term decisions. If there is a conflict between the two, that's no reason to stop being logical. Reason can help resolve that conflict as well.

(Let me know if I'm missing the point. I might be.)

What rational default would you apply to two conflicting but equally rational sets of action? You said before the rational default was to be rational - but that’s how you ended up at this juncture to begin with, wondering what the rational default would be between those two equally rational things.

Needing another ( and some other) rational default. I’m sure we can find them for some things, but imagine a 50/50…. or even a 51/49 with a rational margin of error/unknown that covers the spread.

This is exactly where many of the producers in my scenario find themselves. Not in any easily dismissed scenario or conflict. Presented with a rational conflict and no clear rational default between them.

It’s here that I find a whole range of rational objections to adopting a new model which can challenge my own a-rational defaults in advocating for the same.

(July 20, 2021 at 9:00 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I would say that rational scrutiny could be applied to the problem of "Should I prioritize [these short term goals] at the expense of [these long term goals]?" Why can't reason be a mediating factor there?

ie. "It is reasonable to continue burning some coal to help us meet our short term energy goals, and keep our economy afloat. But (to combat climate change) we ought to aggressively reduce the amount of coal we burn and pursue other means of energy production that will produce less emissions."

When you can put numbers to this, I'll be more convinced. When you have conflicting goals, generally speaking, the more resources applied reduces the risk of failure. Now the cost of risk can be computed for the average case, but most real-world applications are novel, and non-repeating, so average costs tells us nothing. And this is only the conflict of long and short term goals. As noted, there's also rational decisions involving risk, whether I should prioritize others at the expense of myself, or versus that of future people, and whether I should defect or not defect from societal expectations and rules. Think the prisoners dilemma. Is there a rational answer to the prisoners dilemma given what we know of human nature?

Let's examine a real-world scenario. Republicans can change their message, increasing the probability that long-term, they will be able to appeal to enough voters to win elections. However, doing so will alienate the base which they need in order to win 2022 and 2024 elections. If they don't win those elections, conservative policies are dead for many years. If they don't win elections further down the line, their policies will be dead at that point. Generally speaking, the sooner you can enact policy, the more durable it is. However, failure in the long-term has a longer duration. So which course does reason dictate for Republicans? Change the message, or focus on retaining their energized base?

(July 20, 2021 at 9:00 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: The rational default is to make rational short term decisions and rational long term decisions. If there is a conflict between the two, that's no reason to stop being logical. Reason can help resolve that conflict as well.

Ultimately it's a question of risk management under incomplete information. If the future were well-behaved, reason could be applied. That's not a reasonable expectation though. We could sacrifice efforts to combat climate change to keep our economy afloat, but doing so might send us over a tipping point where the human race's existence is essentially at an end, at least in terms of what we've come to expect in terms of quality of life are concerned. How much of the world's GDP justifies the loss of lives due to flooding and natural disasters now occurring. How much is a human life worth in real dollars GDP?

(July 20, 2021 at 9:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What rational default would you apply to two conflicting but equally rational sets of action?  You said before the rational default was to be rational - but that’s how you ended up at this juncture to begin with, wondering what the rational default would be between those two equally rational things.

Needing another ( and some other) rational default.  I’m sure we can find them for some things, but imagine a 50/50…. or even a 51/49 with a rational margin of error/unknown that covers the spread.  

This is exactly where many of the producers in my scenario find themselves.  Not in any easily dismissed scenario or conflict.  Presented with a rational conflict and no clear rational default between them.

It’s here that I find a whole range of rational objections to adopting a new model which can challenge my own a-rational defaults in advocating for the same.

Well, rationality is not some angel who descends from the sky and makes every decision correct. The reasonable thing to do might be an error. 

For example, if someone offers you a bet to double your money on a die roll. You can pick from two categories:

A) The die roll will be 1-5

B) The die roll will be a 6

There are no odds in this situation. The obvious choice to make is category A in all instances (the logical choice). But, hey, if the die roll comes up a 6, well, fuck.

The truth is, the die roll can and will come up 6 sometimes. The reasonable thing to do is always take bet A.

In a Monty Hall scenario when offered a choice between door number 1 and door number 2, logic will be of no aid to you. But, interestingly, add a third door and the ability to switch doors after having a door eliminated (as per the Monty Hall paradox) and it's striking how logic can really aid seemingly random decisions.

That's why, as far as decision-making goes, I think logic (not 100% hellscape logic.... but MOSTLY logic) will always power through and be the best option in the final analysis. Keeping betting 1-5. It's absurd to let the prospect of rolling a 6 deter you from that.

Sure, people get stuck by logic sometimes. Bad information to begin with can really fuck your logic up. But (if we're being reasonable) isn't the reasonable thing to evaluate the strength of your information and improve it where you can? That doesn't mean you'll always be right, but it gives you the best chance of being right.

IDK how I even found myself on this side of the debate. As I said before, I think the non-logical makes an entirely indispensable contribution to life. I guess I even agree that there is no rational default. But, even so, rationality can be a great aid in making determinations where there is no default to work with. It can "produce" a default so to speak.