If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[vulcanlogician]

I think that you’re still framing the issue as though 100% rationality would lead to our conclusions about addressing climate change.  

That all rational roads must by force lead to us and our position.  That it takes a bad faith argument or the insistence that climate action as conceived would be evil - but that all of this would be zeroed out by 100% rationality.  

That’s not been the case in my experience.  While I don’t know any 100% rational people I’ve heard many 100% rational arguments from people against what we like to call the transition to appropriate technology and methodology.  

They’re little mirrors of large scale arguments against the same.  It is unclear, for example, why a completely rational producer would abandon massive investments in infrastructure and equipment specific to their models in order to service an ideological imperative held by others which they themselves have no personal a-rational attachment to.

It is similarly unclear that a 100% rational developing or disadvantaged producer( or society, for that matter) would forgo the benefits of rapid industrialization and mechanization, of petro-chemical agriculture and integrated pest management.

It’s unclear why a producer would abandon or fail to seek those subsidies and programs on the table for crops and methods deemed inappropriate in light of climate change.

It’s unclear why a producer would do -anything- to save the world knowing that a significant number of other people will refuse or simply not be able to comply, and in this, factually prevent the satisfaction of that goal.

Unclear in the case of full rationality- but a super easy pitch if the producer has some pre-existing a-rational attachment to the issue or goal.  In this, I’d go so far as to say that the entire movement is made up of True Believers, for better and for worse.  Climate action as conceived of is not a 100% rational goal.  It’s rationalizable, after the fact, if it works, which it may not.  The hook is always always always some personal conviction.  That’s the difference between people who show up for free food and merchandise  and snore through the presentations, the difference between people who see the dollars and cents but don’t care for the goal and the people who will pursue it at great expense to themselves.

People look for alternative models after they’re already hooked.  They want to do something- and mist of them would like to see at least the pretense of rational expectations of success.  Personal success, global success.  It’s not always the case that these objectors are loons or making bad faith arguments or even that they have bad goals.  Plenty of them want to be involved, but it actually and literally doesn’t make sense for them to do so.  That’s the work that remains.  They can’t be rationally argued out of their positions because their position is inarguably true until we find a solution that fits them.

Reason, rationality at any percentage, does not produce good outcomes..or at least outcomes you and I would call good.  That’s not it’s function, not it’s effect.  Our good outcomes may in fact be on the side of irrationality or a-rationality.  Our motivation in this may be part of the set we’re zeroing out in the thought experiment.  A world full of fully rational people may assess the issue outside of those zeroed out impulses and very legitimately conclude that climate action is a pleasant but indefensible fiction.

That it doesn’t work, won’t work, can’t work, and we’d only be harming people if we dive in headfirst.

I agree generally that the world is made better by human behavior that isn't rationally motivated. But I disagree that certain things (like climate change) wouldn't be solved immediately in a 100% rational world (or even a 90% rational world... hell, a 35% rational world would have probably fixed climate change by now).

Sure, certain people have good reason to ignore climate change. But most of us don't. And even THESE people who have good reason... ask them about the rationality of leaving their children with the apocalypse. The apocalypse weighed against their motivation to grow their business is something deserving of rational consideration.

I'm not sure what these people against the appropriation of technology and methodology have to say, but, even if their opinion endured in a 100%-ish world, there's still be the folks left who only believed climate change should be stopped because of irrational prior beliefs. Conspiracy theories and such. All the conspiracy theorists would (in a 100% rational world) reassess their beliefs logically. That would put them in the "let's fix climate change camp." Even if there were stragglers who had very good reason to ignore climate change, it's not enough to stop the problem from being fixed.

edit:

I also think that bad underlying ideas can be fixed by rationality.

Reason motivates us to explore the foundations of our beliefs. And if that foundation is shaky, the belief is shaky. Almost everyone would come to realize that in a 100% rational world.