(July 21, 2021 at 3:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: We don't, the option that we need some known thing to pillage as pillagers is not a rational default. It's an a-rational default. One which I agree with and advocate for, but a-rational nevertheless. None of the producers I interact with have the ability to give us - no x to pillage. It's not within their power, no matter what they do.
If it were (againa, it isn't), theyd still have to decide on some rational default between pillage and conservation - that'd where I come in. I think that I'm a competent advocate, but it isn't on account of my appealing to their pure rationality - and if it were necessitated on that...I probably wouldn't be so.
So, I think the spirit of my original point was about human nature. The human condition is that we have an "a-rational default" as you call it. And one could argue that we are "mostly" a-rational default. Like, we are 95% irrational drives... and only 5% rational. (If that.)
But what if we weren't 95% emotions, drives, and appetites? What if our rational nature didn't have to struggle against our appetites? What if we were 35% rational?
Things like nationalism (that we have because we are fearful and/or violent), and things like capitalism (which we see as necessary because we are desirous... ie. addicted to having our consumerist desires satisfied) would be less likely to have significant sway over us.
If we were (as individuals) less desirous and fearful ... more rational, climate change would be easier to solve. Mind you, it'd still be difficult. Just not impossible. (As it might be now.)
