Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 30, 2022, 3:44 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
#41
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
I would agree in simple terms that 100% rational forethought does not equal better, in any colloquial sense. It would definitely be less reactionary and thus potentially less violent, in the short term. It might, in the long term, put a cap on births and find it easier to justify genocide in a longer view.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#42
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
It would only be less reactionary when being reactionary wasn’t the rational conclusion. Less violent when violence wasn’t the rational conclusion.

If, when we think of these things, we’re categorizing them as somehow fundamentally irrational, we’ve got the snake eating it’s own tail. The question becomes, if by rational we only mean to include our preferred outcomes or acts - the good ones™, excluding those others, if people were better, would the world be better?

Better, I suppose? Though that might still just be me inflating the importance of our species state to the betterment of the world. I think it’s really hard for us to predict what we would be or would do if we had command of full rational agency.

-assuming that we don’t already, that what we already are and do is essentially not that.
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!
Reply
#43
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
But wouldn’t reactionary by definition exclude drawing conclusions,? Perhaps I should have specified immediate emotional reactions.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#44
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
If we were fully rational, our rational reactions may be as immediate as our emotional ones, which is to say that the immediacy we believe to be detrimental about reactionary acts could be a shared attribute between our currently conceived other-thans and our hypothetically super rational agent.

There seems to be, to me, a process of lumping bad™ things as irrational. We imagine that more rational creatures than ourselves would be less violent, less reactionary, less all of our negatively weighted things. Idk why we think that, especially with our actual selves as the primary example of what rational creatures are like.

The most rational creatures on earth are the most -insert our bad things here- on earth. A super-rational agent may be like that, just more. Better and more committed to violence. More sure of their immediate responses. Less skeptical of their own motivations.
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!
Reply
#45
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
So in this hypothetical place a 100% rational person would be less skeptical of themselves? I don’t think that sounds like anything anyone here would want.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#46
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
Why would a 100% rational being have reason to be skeptical…and supposing that they were, do we imagine that they’d find themselves to be wrong if they did look?

Just spitballing, just suggesting that maybe a full rationality doesn’t look anything like people would generally imagine. That it wouldn’t actually solve people’s pet issues with humanity, but exacerbate them.

Might also make us more of things we like, too, ofc. A more rational appraisal and expectations of love could hardly be expected to make us love less or make love worth less or more shallow. More us, I suspect, is what being better at what we do would do to us. More of the good, more of the bad, just more.
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!
Reply
#47
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
- I’ll add this nugget to chew on. I actually didn’t think it would be better if we were more skeptical. We’re already a creature that doubts whether we can know anything, and in doubting that erodes any and every case for all action god or ill.
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!
Reply
#48
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
I condone rationality but have hit too many wild shots be all in.
Reply
#49
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
(July 16, 2021 at 8:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: 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.
Reply
#50
RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
I could 100% rationalize my immediate selfish. Desires to outweigh any potential down the road concern, and then justify all sorts of bad behavior with that as the reason. I don’t think 100% rationality is enough to get us there. What if we we switched it to a 100% honest and up front world?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  If you were accused but were innocent ... GrandizerII 40 1828 December 3, 2018 at 9:44 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  An easy proof that rational numbers are countable. Jehanne 7 1476 February 22, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Argument from "better to seek proper vision". Mystic 53 4243 October 25, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Is the fear of irrational fears rational? ErGingerbreadMandude 26 5418 August 13, 2017 at 9:48 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Is there a logical, rational reason why hate is bad? WisdomOfTheTrees 27 2871 February 4, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  What if Creationists were Athiest for a day? ScienceAf 59 3988 August 29, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 2955 June 12, 2016 at 3:13 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Oxford Metaphysics Podcasts - 100+ available online, free Heat 0 616 April 5, 2016 at 9:39 pm
Last Post: Heat
  Is world better without Saddam? TrueChristian 90 8853 December 31, 2015 at 1:59 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  In regard to the rational person's choice Mohammed1212 23 5172 April 27, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Last Post: noctalla



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)