The Rationality Trap

"You can make philosophical and evidence-based arguments for protecting our species and future generations. But sadly, human beings are not rational. It’s not that easy."
     BBC Article

The suggestion here is that if human beings were "rational" they would do what "is good for them."

But "rational" is merely the statement that an argument is correctly structured.  If that statement is correct, then the conclusion of the argument, based on its assumptions (the facts), will be correct.

But if the assumptions or "facts" are not correct or "true", then the conclusion of the argument, while correct, is not "true".
     All men are mortal,
     Aristotle is a man,
     Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.

Correct and "true".
But what if Aristotle is not a man; a statue, for example.
A statue cannot be considered mortal.

The conclusion is therefore "false".

Maybe the problem, then is not that people are not rational, but that the wrong argument is being used to reach the desired conclusion.

In addition, of course,  the desired conclusion is also in dispute.


"To foster longer-term thinking that goes against our psychological base instincts, there need to be approaches and arguments that inspire and engage the non-rational part of our brain too."
     Same BBC article

 Why would we want to go against out "base instincts"?  They are instincts. 

Is it an instinct to want offspring?  Is it an instinct to provide for those offspring?  Is it an instinct to do what improves the quality of one's life?  Is it an instict that the wealthier the family, the lower the birth rate? 

Perhaps the problem is that we refuse to work with our instincts, rather than work with them to achieve our ends.