Modern civilization is based on rationality, but it is not rational. Most people think of industrial/modern civilization as an expression of rationality, or even as excessive rationality. They see the complex, highly abstract theories of modern science, the complex and carefully designed modern technology that we depend on, and the highly efficient and carefully managed industrial processes that produce everything from toothpaste to cars to hamburgers. Modern civilization seems like a triumph of rationality. The market and the printing press unleashed rationality, and that explosion of rationality created the modern world.
This is a novel and beautiful perspective. Do you think, that controlling our destiny, is basically what we are meant for? That is, everything about us is geared for this? I know this question would bring further more questions, but it's a novel thing to think.
> Each part is rational in itself, because it was rationally designed and selected. But modern civilization as a whole was not rationally designed and selected. The aggregate structure of millions of designs is not a design. The aggregate effect of millions of choices is not a choice.
>
> The rationality of the parts does not imply the rationality of the whole.
Do you think the converse is possible? That something can be rational on the whole even though many of its parts - taken in isolation - are irrational?
Of course, what I'm referring to is religion.
As far as I can tell, religion/ideology is the only social technology available to us that can affect meaningful change on a massive scale.
Scary and awesome
This is a novel and beautiful perspective. Do you think, that controlling our destiny, is basically what we are meant for? That is, everything about us is geared for this? I know this question would bring further more questions, but it's a novel thing to think.
Nice read though.
> Each part is rational in itself, because it was rationally designed and selected. But modern civilization as a whole was not rationally designed and selected. The aggregate structure of millions of designs is not a design. The aggregate effect of millions of choices is not a choice.
>
> The rationality of the parts does not imply the rationality of the whole.
Do you think the converse is possible? That something can be rational on the whole even though many of its parts - taken in isolation - are irrational?
Of course, what I'm referring to is religion.
As far as I can tell, religion/ideology is the only social technology available to us that can affect meaningful change on a massive scale.
This is as it should be.