I feel like sacrificial fodder for evil

[Edwin]

My premises:

1. Rational parents tend to have rational children: Let me explain. I do not mean to say rationality has a genetic deterministic component. I do not mean to say rationality has a social deterministic component (which people sometimes call nurture/conditioning). In fact I know people choose to be rational for their own well being. However, I am confident that if we look at the evidence we would find that children of rational parents choose to be rational more often than children of irrational parents.
2. Rational parents have fewer children: This is supported by multiple lines of evidence. There are numerous studies that show that religious and superstitious people often procreate more and end up with a lot of indoctrinated minds. e.g. The Amish have multiplied many times in the world.
3. Brainwashing & Indoctrination is possible under the threat of loss of individual rights.
4. Rational people make the world work, expecting values in return for the work they did.

Soon there will be very little rational people because more new people choose to not be rational in a world described by my premises. Irrational people destroy or parasite-on everything we have created for many centuries. And the world goes into the Dark Ages as rational people become extinct once more, to be "reborn" many centuries later. The cycle continues.

The only loser in this whole cycle is me, the rational man. I am being cultivated (i.e. allowed to roam free) for a while until such a time when the parasites have enough to feed on. So we are sacrificial fodder for evil.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Edwin

[bluecherry]

The irrational people may grow in numbers and outnumber the rational ones, but there are some important things to keep in mind. 1) Though it may be more difficult to become rational when you are raised on a path intentionally fraught with obstacles against becoming so, as you've admitted, it is still possible. Even if ALL the rational people poofed out of existence suddenly and just irrational people and the children of irrational people were left, more rational people would pop back up anyway because just telling people the sky is purple over and over won't convince all of them that it is not in fact blue. 2) As it goes over in Atlas Shrugged, evil is irrational and the irrational is incompatible with reality and therefore ultimately impotent. If the ratio of parasitism to victims gets too high, the scheme collapses, it just can't be sustained anymore. The collapse can be a very painful process though, so it's generally to be avoided except as a last resort. 3) Most people are not entirely irrational even if they are not entirely rational either, they're mixed. Anybody entirely irrational would be on the fast track to eliminating themselves from existence anyway. So sure, unfortunately there is a lot of irrationality in most people out there, but most of them aren't THAT entirely, thoroughly depraved either. If it gets really obvious they're staring imminent doom in the face, you won't get most of them happily staying the course, they can be convinced to make some necessary changes at least to fend off the worst. Try to not *just* focus on the bad in most people and instead try to deal selectively with people by identifying their strengths and weaknesses and working with the good and avoiding the bad to make the most of the situation and keep not drown yourself in an exaggerated, unrealistically bleak view. Being careful is one thing, concluding it's hopeless and pointless is another thing entirely. The first is helpful, the second is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Also, I'm not too clear on what you meant by premise three either. Threatening to rob me wouldn't convince me I have no property rights after all and the robbers are cool for example.

[Dingbat]

What does it matter how many of each there are? Say the irrationalists outnumber the rationalists. A very good rationalist ought to be able to become king of them all. Pros and cons to each situation. Let humanity run its course. Let people with the desire to see the light of reason, see the light. Let another Dark Age come, if that's what it takes for people to learn.

[Edwin]

The irrational people may grow in numbers and outnumber the rational ones, but there are some important things to keep in mind. 1) Though it may be more difficult to become rational when you are raised on a path intentionally fraught with obstacles against becoming so, as you've admitted, it is still possible. Even if ALL the rational people poofed out of existence suddenly and just irrational people and the children of irrational people were left, more rational people would pop back up anyway because just telling people the sky is purple over and over won't convince all of them that it is not in fact blue. 2) As it goes over in Atlas Shrugged, evil is irrational and the irrational is incompatible with reality and therefore ultimately impotent. If the ratio of parasitism to victims gets too high, the scheme collapses, it just can't be sustained anymore. The collapse can be a very painful process though, so it's generally to be avoided except as a last resort. 3) Most people are not entirely irrational even if they are not entirely rational either, they're mixed. Anybody entirely irrational would be on the fast track to eliminating themselves from existence anyway. So sure, unfortunately there is a lot of irrationality in most people out there, but most of them aren't THAT entirely, thoroughly depraved either. If it gets really obvious they're staring imminent doom in the face, you won't get most of them happily staying the course, they can be convinced to make some necessary changes at least to fend off the worst. Try to not *just* focus on the bad in most people and instead try to deal selectively with people by identifying their strengths and weaknesses and working with the good and avoiding the bad to make the most of the situation and keep not drown yourself in an exaggerated, unrealistically bleak view. Being careful is one thing, concluding it's hopeless and pointless is another thing entirely. The first is helpful, the second is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Also, I'm not too clear on what you meant by premise three either. Threatening to rob me wouldn't convince me I have no property rights after all and the robbers are cool for example.

Thanks a lot for the reply. And I agree with it. It is just that sometimes it gets too difficult to deal with people.

Premise 3 prolongs the Dark Ages. It is harder to snap out of dogma when you are deep in it, even if you choose to be rational.

Actually since neither of us function under threats, we would indeed become fodder for evil, because they will try to make us concede by force and set our submission as an example for the rest of the world.

[softwareNerd]

Soon there will be very little rational people because more new people choose to not be rational in a world described by my premises.

One can point to many countries that went through "dark ages" of deep superstition and widespread acceptance of irrational ideas, and that emerged from those ages and turned significantly rational in many ways. So, you need to integrate that historical fact with your theory. Edited February 4, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Edwin]

What does it matter how many of each there are? Say the irrationalists outnumber the rationalists. A very good rationalist ought to be able to become king of them all. Pros and cons to each situation. Let humanity run its course. Let people with the desire to see the light of reason, see the light. Let another Dark Age come, if that's what it takes for people to learn.

I don't think rationalists will choose to rule people like Kings. They will instead try to exchange value for value. Unfortunately it is impossible to make terms with the irrational. Evil always wins in any such trade.

[Dingbat]

Unless, of course, you identify the irrational users of force as brutish sub-humans then have your way!

[philosopher]

In theory it shouldn't matter if you're the only rational man left alive. As long as there is a proper form of government, where individual rights are the law, and voting is only about who implements them, you should be safe. Of course in reality voting gives far more power than that these days. Think what a massive use of force it is to take over an entire industry, is so much force used anywhere else but in wartime?

[JayR]

I Think the average adult human being is far more rational than you give them credit for.

Irrational people destroy or parasite-on everything we have created for many centuries.

You shouldnt think like this. Egoism is for furthering your own life, dont get bogged down with thoughts like that. They serve no purpose.

[softwareNerd]

My premises:

Even keeping with the spirit of you premises, there's an important premise that you left out:

i.e. Even if children of irrational parents are less rational as a group than children of rational parents, the whole generation can still be more rational than the previous one, or the whole generation can be less rational than the previous one. To simplify, if there are only two groups, and irrational have a "rationality-score" of 6, and rational have a "rationality-score" of 8, the next generation born of those two groups does not necessarily also have a 6 and an 8. It could have a 7 and a 9. Therefore, even with the changing size of the groups, the average across the two groups can rise.

More fundamentally, human beings are volitional, and the parent-to-child transference assumed in your premises does not properly account for that. Passive aping may play a role most of the time, but history shows us that new ideas do catch fire from time to time: good ideas as well as bad ones. When this happens, the a new generation will often adopt the new idea more readily than its parents, and one has a shift for the better (or worse).

Edited February 4, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Dingbat]

And don't forget, living by example might inspire people to change their ways.

[Dante]

Dividing people up into groups of "rational" versus "irrational" and assuming everyone has to fit into one or the other is a mistake. Most people are rational and self-interested in some respects but not in others. The vast majority of Americans survive primarily by production, and most people would agree that this is a more moral way to live than leeching off of others. They don't make a single choice, "rational" or "irrational" and then live their lives based on that. I think you should seriously reexamine the world around you.

[dakota]

It is just that sometimes it gets too difficult to deal with people.

This is melodramatic, to put it mildly. Maybe your angst has more to do with your difficulty in dealing with people than it does from looking rationally at the world around you.