RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
July 21, 2021 at 6:40 am
(This post was last modified: July 21, 2021 at 7:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
We ended up on this one because we enjoy exploring novel positions, lol. We both think that taking action to deal with climate change is the rational course of action, and we both think that reason is an effective tool. Rational hellscape reason, or reason that leads us to conclude that climate action is unreasonable present -to us- as unreasonable.....but may in fact be both reasonable and a true state of affairs.
There may be no rational default between climate action and climate inaction to a given producer. The "default" being considered may be a-rational, or worse, positively irrational.
More broadly, we got into this one wondering what a 100% rational human being would actually be like, actually do, whether it would map to our preconceptions. I think it wouldn't. I don't think we'd be better or worse in any non novel sense (or that the world would). I think a 100% rational human would look alot like us. More effective pillagers of the earth, in context. As individuals, we may not be 100% rational all the time, but I do think that we can be or can approach it in the aggregate as a species - and we see where that got us. We're here, imo, because of the good and rational decisions that we've made. It wasn't poor thinking that lead to climate change, but pure human brilliance and skill. I want to say otherwise, and assert my own imperatives and criticisms as the rational set - but if I rationally assess them, I find the case inaccurate with respect to it's underlying assumptions and lacking with respect to the force of it's conclusion. I have a rationalizable but fundamentally a-rational stake in a particular set of outcomes. The application of partial reason* is the strategy that will lead to those outcomes.
Imo, this is why the green movement hasn't been able to gain better purchase. Saving the planet for saving the planets sake is a shitty pitch even if the contents of the pitch are reasonable and true. In any conflict between man and a rock, the default is man. Climate action will only happen when it connects to our personal stakes and is clearly beneficial to them. That's why charts and graphs and presentations about facts regarding climate change hasn't worked. I leave that out entirely when I make the case.
*Or, if we prefer, the methodical exploitation of other peoples a-rational and irrational biases, predispositions, and assumptions
There may be no rational default between climate action and climate inaction to a given producer. The "default" being considered may be a-rational, or worse, positively irrational.
More broadly, we got into this one wondering what a 100% rational human being would actually be like, actually do, whether it would map to our preconceptions. I think it wouldn't. I don't think we'd be better or worse in any non novel sense (or that the world would). I think a 100% rational human would look alot like us. More effective pillagers of the earth, in context. As individuals, we may not be 100% rational all the time, but I do think that we can be or can approach it in the aggregate as a species - and we see where that got us. We're here, imo, because of the good and rational decisions that we've made. It wasn't poor thinking that lead to climate change, but pure human brilliance and skill. I want to say otherwise, and assert my own imperatives and criticisms as the rational set - but if I rationally assess them, I find the case inaccurate with respect to it's underlying assumptions and lacking with respect to the force of it's conclusion. I have a rationalizable but fundamentally a-rational stake in a particular set of outcomes. The application of partial reason* is the strategy that will lead to those outcomes.
Imo, this is why the green movement hasn't been able to gain better purchase. Saving the planet for saving the planets sake is a shitty pitch even if the contents of the pitch are reasonable and true. In any conflict between man and a rock, the default is man. Climate action will only happen when it connects to our personal stakes and is clearly beneficial to them. That's why charts and graphs and presentations about facts regarding climate change hasn't worked. I leave that out entirely when I make the case.
*Or, if we prefer, the methodical exploitation of other peoples a-rational and irrational biases, predispositions, and assumptions
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
