As long as there are enough rational individuals in the world -

[Praxis101]

couldn't we say that the human species is no longer at risk of eliminating itself via an anthropological threat?

Having considered this notion, is it reasonable to say that we are morally compelled to produce rational individuals, both as rational individuals ourselves AND as a society functioning in unity?

Your thoughts?

[Shadowrun]

1. how do we know how many rational individuals we need before your premise is held true (which i dont think it can ever be)?
2. why would you think otherwise?

[kurto]

What is enough? What if the non-rational people just overwhelm the rational people?

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
What is enough? What if the non-rational people just overwhelm the rational people?

[/ QUOTE ]
Firstly: I don't think there are non-rational people. This matter, however, is irrelevant to the discussion, and can be removed from your mind. (All I am implying here is that there are irrational moments, where sheer emotion takes over - and that individuals themselves can tend towards irrationality, appear irrational, yet never be wholly deemed irrational)

Secondly: (and more importantly) I don't see or forsee any motivation for these "nonrational" individuals to "overwhelm" the rational ones.


Lastly, I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean when you say what is enough? - but I suspect it is an article of rhetoric.

[kurto]

I think the OP is a little vague and so my answers may be as well.

In terms of 'overwhelming' I simply meant that if the nonrational population of the Earth is breeding faster then the rational sect, that the rational sect could become statistically insignificant.

Also-- I was thinking that if irrational behaviour led to our species demise (see The End of Faith by Sam Harris, as an example)... then the numbers of irrational people may be significant enough to overwhelm (through action) the rational.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
1. how do we know how many rational individuals we need before your premise is held true (which i dont think it can ever be)?


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no way to know, per say: but what we can do it predict (or attempt, at least.)

We need enough rational individuals so as to spread information of potential global, human threats to the majority of existing individuals (meaning: the majority of the world.)

This way, once threats have been both predicted and proven, the majority of the human population can act in ways according to survival.

A Stipulation: You could conceive, (as a thought experiment), that very-strongly-rational act in ways to prevent these threats ahead of time - before they actually occur. The accuracy of the predictions, of course, is up-for-grabs and can never be precisely, 100% certain.



[ QUOTE ]
2. why would you think otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
In an attempt to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary emotion/effort, I'd like to say that I'm not quite, precisely, sure of your meaning.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. how do we know how many rational individuals we need before your premise is held true (which i dont think it can ever be)?


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no way to know, per say: but what we can do it predict (or attempt, at least.)

We need enough rational individuals so as to spread information of potential global, human threats to the majority of existing individuals (meaning: the majority of the world.)

This way, once threats have been both predicted and proven, the majority of the human population can act in ways according to survival.

A Stipulation: You could conceive, (as a thought experiment), that very-strongly-rational act in ways to prevent these threats ahead of time - before they actually occur. The accuracy of the predictions, of course, is up-for-grabs and can never be precisely, 100% certain.



[ QUOTE ]
2. why would you think otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
In an attempt to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary emotion/effort, I'd like to say that I'm not quite, precisely, sure of your meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

about 2:

i am trying to say why wouldn't we raise our kids to be rational?
i dont see the novel point in your post of
"Having considered this notion, is it reasonable to say that we are morally compelled to produce rational individuals, both as rational individuals ourselves AND as a society functioning in unity"? because it seems so obvious.

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
i am trying to say why wouldn't we raise our kids to be rational?
i dont see the novel point in your post of
"Having considered this notion, is it reasonable to say that we are morally compelled to produce rational individuals, both as rational individuals ourselves AND as a society functioning in unity"? because it seems so obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh thankyou for being as straightforward as possible, I find it easier to interpret meaning this way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Perhaps there are moments of emotion where we can objectively observe irrational behavior in certain individuals - if we could identify the causes behind these emotions, and "fix" them, as to produce less irrational behavior, we will progress towards rational behavior on the whole, as a species.

The implication is that the children are not necessarily the largest concern we are looking at (although, of course, the well-being of our children is a high priority.)

Perhaps there is pressure for society to heal - or fix , perhaps, if this word works for you - the existing individuals in society.

Maybe, as a species, it is a moral imperative (considering the statistics already discussed in this thread) to do everything within our means to promote rationality. To heal the species! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

This is simply a thought experiment - I find large-scale courses of action to be a particularly important and interesting article of conversation.

Maybe there are certain new scientific fields that have been introduced in an effort to promote such behavior. (Psychology)

Maybe there are more individuals seeking these routes, today, presently, currently, than we are observing. Maybe some individuals are unconsciously seeking these routes. There is no way to test these behaviors, of course, other than objective observation (and this is time consuming and requires rational thought.)



Lots of maybes, I thought it was interesting. This post was probably incoherent, I write fast and do not really think about how it will be interpreted, sometimes - let me know if I should clarify and where! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the OP is a little vague and so my answers may be as well.

In terms of 'overwhelming' I simply meant that if the nonrational population of the Earth is breeding faster then the rational sect, that the rational sect could become statistically insignificant.

Also-- I was thinking that if irrational behaviour led to our species demise (see The End of Faith by Sam Harris, as an example)... then the numbers of irrational people may be significant enough to overwhelm (through action) the rational.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are certain constructs in society that might be seen as promoting a healing of some kind - and this healing may not be physical. (There was a recent episode on the TV series House about the validity of this topic, for those who have seen it.)

I don't see the danger in Christianity, reeeaaallly - I strongly believe that individuals are capable of lieing to themselves, and that there are EXTREMELY FEW individuals who believe in much of the fantasy presented in the Bible, whatever their convictions may be.

(I don't trust convictions either, and try to alleviate them from myself, for that matter.)

[Siegmund]

In the game-theoretic sense, the premise is only true if you have a sufficiently restrictive definition of rational (you have to assume that noone has a utility function wherein destroying both himself and his enemy is preferred to letting his enemy have his way.)

If everyone values his own life sufficiently, and if everyone is rational, then yes, your premise is true.

The problem is that "enough" is "everyone": one person making an irrational move, in the global-nuclear-holocaust game, is enough to wipe us all out, if it's a sufficiently powerful person who does something sufficiently dastardly.