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.
I think we should strive to control our destiny, or in other words expand rationality.
There is no guarantee that we can expand rationality to the scale of a civilization or the world, but we have expanded rationality in the past (e.g. science is the collectively rational pursuit of knowledge), so there is hope.
> 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.
Yes, something can be rational as a whole, even if the parts are not rational. For example, the mental processes that generate thought are purely instinctive and automatic, and thus could be said to be "irrational", or at least "nonrational". The brain as a whole can be rational, but the constituent parts of the brain are not brains, and thus not rational.
With regard to religion, it could be rational if it was designed to serve a purpose. We can imagine an intellectual elite designing a religion to control the masses. In that case, it would be rational from the perspective of the elite, but not from the perspective of the masses.
Existing religions were not designed, although Islam is a partial exception. Religions evolve by cultural evolution: a historical process that we don't control. E.g. the printing press had a huge effect on Christianity, first creating Protestantism and then the Enlightenment and shift away from a religious worldview. Nobody planned or even anticipated that effect of new technology. It just happened. Something similar is happening now.
A belief or behavior could have a rational justification but be propagated irrationally. Marriage is a good example. Traditional religion was mostly functional in the past (for society and individuals), but it isn't functional now. Because religion is irrationally propagated, it can't be easily changed. It places certain things off-limits to thought, which prevents progress and adaptation.
Ideologies tend to be socially dysfunctional. Ideologies are controlled by cultural and social dynamics. They are not designed or controlled by any individual or group. They arise out of the uncoordinated behaviors of many individuals. They can have big effects, but the effects are usually socially destructive, because they are irrational. Communism is a good example.
A rational elite would try to impose a socially functional belief system on the masses. But we don't have a rational elite, and no existing religion or ideology is socially functional.
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.
Thanks.
I think we should strive to control our destiny, or in other words expand rationality.
There is no guarantee that we can expand rationality to the scale of a civilization or the world, but we have expanded rationality in the past (e.g. science is the collectively rational pursuit of knowledge), so there is hope.
> 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.
Yes, something can be rational as a whole, even if the parts are not rational. For example, the mental processes that generate thought are purely instinctive and automatic, and thus could be said to be "irrational", or at least "nonrational". The brain as a whole can be rational, but the constituent parts of the brain are not brains, and thus not rational.
With regard to religion, it could be rational if it was designed to serve a purpose. We can imagine an intellectual elite designing a religion to control the masses. In that case, it would be rational from the perspective of the elite, but not from the perspective of the masses.
Existing religions were not designed, although Islam is a partial exception. Religions evolve by cultural evolution: a historical process that we don't control. E.g. the printing press had a huge effect on Christianity, first creating Protestantism and then the Enlightenment and shift away from a religious worldview. Nobody planned or even anticipated that effect of new technology. It just happened. Something similar is happening now.
A belief or behavior could have a rational justification but be propagated irrationally. Marriage is a good example. Traditional religion was mostly functional in the past (for society and individuals), but it isn't functional now. Because religion is irrationally propagated, it can't be easily changed. It places certain things off-limits to thought, which prevents progress and adaptation.
Ideologies tend to be socially dysfunctional. Ideologies are controlled by cultural and social dynamics. They are not designed or controlled by any individual or group. They arise out of the uncoordinated behaviors of many individuals. They can have big effects, but the effects are usually socially destructive, because they are irrational. Communism is a good example.
A rational elite would try to impose a socially functional belief system on the masses. But we don't have a rational elite, and no existing religion or ideology is socially functional.
You always ask the tough questions :)
This is as it should be.