Would the World be Better if People Were More Rational?

[Sunstone]

All else being equal, would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational?

If better, in what way(s) would it be better?

If the same, why the same?

If worse, in what way(s) would it be worse?
​

BONUS QUESTION: What do you personally mean by "rational"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would the world be better if people were more rational? If so, in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Yes, it would be... in terms of human physical and mental well-being.

As for what ways it would help... an example from modern history: Norman Borlaug is credited with preventing a billion (with a b) deaths due to starvation and malnutrition by developing and expanding a rational approach to agriculture. I'm sure that other fields could have similar gains from a rational approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

As for what ways it would help... an example from modern history: Norman Borlaug is credited with preventing a billion (with a b) deaths due to starvation and malnutrition by developing and expanding a rational approach to agriculture. I'm sure that other fields could have similar gains from a rational approach.

And in the process, we've wiped out even more of the natural environment.
Still, I agree that rational thought would make things better.

 

[Sanzbir]

Would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational? If so, in what way(s) would it be better? If the same, why? If worse, why worse?

No.

Because we would not exist.

Our irrationality are strangely rational in the schema of survival. It's a survival trait that evolution gave to us, for good reason.

Sure assuming the sudden movement you see in the forest is a hostile predator is not rational. But the rational person who waited for full verification and evidence of the movement's status as a predator was eaten.

Our brains have evolved to make several shortcuts, especially when it comes to evaluating danger, that enables us to survive better overall. We're irrational by design. Most animals that haven't been driven to extinction are.

Sure, we jump at sticks thinking irrationally that they are snakes, but sometimes they are snakes and that irrational instinct saves us.

If humans were rational, we would have gone extinct before we got agriculture figured out.

All we really need is to foster awareness of why we are irrational so we can work on a personal level to combat our own irrationality where it causes negative effects.

But human irrationality is still a net positive, at least when it comes to our overall survival, otherwise we would not have evolved in that way. If it was a detriment, then the irrational folks would have died and the rational ones lived to reproduce. But that didn't happen, instead the irrational ones survived.

And now that we have advanced to where we are now, we can start to understand our own irrational tendencies and work to minimize the downsides of this evolutionary survival trait.

 

[sun rise]

I would vote for "the world would be a better place if people were more kind and loving" over rationality. But being rational is also helpful.

 

[Skwim]

Irrationality never won a fair lady. (What the hell does that mean?)... (It means wimen need a darn good reason to drop their nickers)... (Oh.)

.

 

[bobhikes]

Rational doesn't = Good, Fun, Beautiful, Loving ...etc. Rational tends to mean cold and calculating. The life of the party is not the Rational person.

 

[Enoch07]

All else being equal, would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational?

If better, in what way(s) would it be better?

If the same, why the same?

If worse, in what way(s) would it be worse?
​

BONUS QUESTION: What do you personally mean by "rational"?

Imo it would be about the same. A good example is the divide within the atheist community. Those that support feminism and those that believe feminism is an ideology, dare I say, almost a religion. Even amongst a majority rational civilization differences of opinion will always be present.

Hypothetically if more people became rational. At first, I think it would be great. You would see a reinvigoration of progress in all areas, tech/social/economical etc. But as time goes on lets say 5 years or so, a divide of opinion would begin to grow, and then we would be right back to where we started. That being ideologically different groups all arguing over which rational train of thought is the correct one! If you'll forgive my use of a meme.

 

[Augustus]

One problem would be that what is 'rational' at any given time is frequently wrong. An easy example would be how dietary advice has completely reversed in many things in the past decade. Throughout history, countless medical treatments have caused harms also, despite being rational at the time.

Being rational, Britain would have probably made peace with the Nazis in 1940 and countless explorers and innovators wouldn't have done what they did. The reign of terror was driven by Enlightenment Rationalists, and later the rise of Marxist Communism was driven by their intellectual heirs. These were opposed by 'irrational' traditionalists, Orthodox and Catholics.

The more 'rational' people are, the less diversity you have in thought as everyone follows 'best practice'. Diversity is a very important thing though. Most of what we know and have discovered has been through trial and error, accident and this relies on a diversity of experience. Alexander Fleming, being rational, would have tidied up his lab before going on holiday and never discovered penicillin.

Too much rationality leads to conformity around the orthodoxy in many situations, people often think they know things before they have evidence to prove them. Most of the time these people are wrong, but occasionally they are spectacularly right.

Throughout history, people have been hubristic and thought they knew more and could control more than they actually could. Diversity in thought is a bulwark against this.
In an irrational world you get volatility and frequent, but smaller scale problems. This is the way of nature.

In a highly rational world you would get pseudo-stability, followed by less frequent, but far more harmful problems.

 

[Nous]

All else being equal, would the world tend to be better, worse, or the same if people were more rational?

If better, in what way(s) would it be better?

If the same, why the same?

If worse, in what way(s) would it be worse?​

​

I say the world would tend to be better if people were more rational (or if more people were rational) because it would mean that people would be more able to (or more people would be able to) engage in logical thought processes in order to reach sound conclusions.

​

BONUS QUESTION: What do you personally mean by "rational"?

I always answer your bonus questions because one gets extra money for them.

By "rational," I mean the ability to use logic in order to deduce sound conclusions.

 

[Polymath257]

The problem is that rationality is only one side of the coin. We also need compassion. Either one without the other will fail to make a better world. Both seem to be difficult for us humans to achieve.

But both will likely be necessary for us to survive.

 

[Kapalika]

I said worse but @Sanzbir made a much more compelling argument than I ever could.

I was basically gonna argue that things like empathy, on a core level, are not inherently rational. But overall a lot of things are not rational. In Star Trek, the Vulcans would do "rational" things sometimes and do morally questionable things in the processes if it seemed "logical". Mostly villains but it's still proof of my point.

That's kind of my gripe with the idea. Maybe it would be better to say, the world would be better off if people were not controlled by irrationality.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes the world would be better if it was more rational.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

by more rational, I mean people would stop discounting the future to zero and start thinking and planning longer term for more or all of their actions...planning to be ready for the unlikely and unexpected, because those sorts of things do indeed happen...things like choosing to not build homes and businesses in a floodplain, or cities next to volcanoes, or nuclear power plants next to the ocean...

Yes, I think things would be better in the world if people started to look beyond their next dinner or orgasm or good book to read or their team's next game...or so on...If people and organizations (nations, companies, etc.) had to actually internalize all of the costs of their decisions, instead of foisting them off on society, distant populations, their own health and that of their neighbors, everyone would make far different decisions than they do today, in the fossil-fueled consumerist economy...

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now...

 

[Brickjectivity]

Life only has irrational meaning. Ration is a way of using that meaning but is not a replacement. Sometimes when you say 'Meaning' it refers to the rationing of meaning, but sometimes it refers to the raw, irrational root of all rationality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, it would, among other reasons because rationality is necessary to avoid suffering.

As a matter of fact, reason is the raw material for morality.

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, it would, among other reasons because rationality is necessary to avoid suffering.

As a matter of fact, reason is the raw material for morality.

Reason is not the sole raw material for morality. It can be, but it can also be the raw material for just as much immorality.

Convicted mass murderers are a good example. The moral (immoral by my standards) thing to do is to lock them away in jail, and try to rehabilitate them or at the very least keep them away from possible victims. What happens if they are released without being rehabilitated, or escape. They then go on to murder more people. The "moral" reasoning has led to a immoral action followed by multiple immoral acts.

The immoral (moral by my standards) action, is to execute the murderer. This prevents the murderer from ever hurting anyone ever again. Thus preventing any further possible loss of life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Reason is not the sole raw material for morality. It can be, but it can also be the raw material for just as much immorality.

So I am often told... but it does not really make sense.

Convicted mass murderers are a good example. The moral (immoral by my standards) thing to do is to lock them away in jail, and try to rehabilitate them or at the very least keep them away from possible victims. What happens if they are released without being rehabilitated, or escape. They then go on to murder more people. The "moral" reasoning has led to a immoral action followed by multiple immoral acts.

The immoral (moral by my standards) action, is to execute the murderer. This prevents the murderer from ever hurting anyone ever again. Thus preventing any further possible loss of life.

It seems to me that you are simply saying that you want to believe that revenge is moral.

 

[Enoch07]

So I am often told... but it does not really make sense.


It seems to me that you are simply saying that you want to believe that revenge is moral.

Execution has nothing to do with revenge. Revenge would be allowing the families of the murder victim to kill the murderer with their own hands.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

I would vote for "the world would be a better place if people were more kind and loving" over rationality. But being rational is also helpful.

You read my mind

I think wisdom is at least as important as rationality. Pity most of us aren't terribly wise ... I suppose wisdom would probly also mean being rational and not prone to negative emotions such as hate and envy and prejudice ...

Cheers.