Very clean yet very boring? Very exact yet lacking anything spiritual? Very safe yet destructive on a personal level?
yes, yes, no.
if the world was completely rational, there would be no emotion, if there is no emotion than there is no destructive personal tendencies.
now as to why this would be a good idea GCT?
now hurry up and answer and pass me my soma.
lol !!!
It would look in-human. Alien. Sterile. Flavorless, colorless, passionless, loveless, and hopeless. It would be cold and mechanical. Static. Stable. Dead.
it’d be a magical place. full of adventure. purposiveness. wonder.
There could never be an entirely rational world because it’s our feelings that drive anything to be rational or irrational. So, as soon as you bring feelings as a neccessary condition to achieve anything in life or the world, how can it ever be feeling free or in other words, rational? Heh! Heh! Heh! Gotcha! 
Human Beings would cease to function in a completely rational world.
Books would not exist.
Everyone would be named Joe.
No one would take risks.
Popular opinion would still matter.
Humans will still die.
No one would get out of bed.
The supposition that an entirely rational world would be emotionless demonstrates a misunderstanding, certainly a common one, about the nature of reason. The rational man is certainly aware of his own emotions. He uses his emotion in the calculations that determine his actions, he simply refuses to be blinded by it. A truly rational world would be more predictable than our own, but not completely so because we lack the omniscience necessary to predict how every rational man would react in a given situation.
Emotions are irrational. If the world becomes COMPLETELY rational, that would mean the elimination or extinction of all emotions. If the world becomes simply MORE rational, then emotions could still exist and play a part.
One without Humans
I’ve read a similar explanation. If human race were to emerge rational and philosophical right from the beginning, we would not be able to survive this long. It has a lot to do with the risks that humans take–I think. Taking the risk has helped us in our survival. Although, I wish I have read the full argument. I’m not sure if this is right.
Can you define Rationality for me?
Presumably, you mean a world in which all humans are rational, unless you subscribe to a Gaia theory.
By definition, all humans are rational, as rationality is the human faculty for reasoning. To define a person as irrational is more to describe a person as not correctly linking cause and effect than anything else. An irrational person acts in a way that to us does not respect cause and effect - such as getting angry at a train, or trying to lift the world with an iron ring.
I propose that we do live in a world that is entirely rational, but not one which is logical. Are you proposing that emotion not factor into rationality?
I think if everyone were more rational than we are now, trains would run on time more often, and there would be less misplaced passion in the world.
Sorry, I missed your post. Didn’t see it till today. By being rational, I mean, using syllogism, deduction, analytic, instead of the so-called instrumental reasoning in decision theory in which given the preferences, beliefs, and expectations, we make our choices.
The latter is, I think, we use for expediency—we use it at the moment to produce the best results. But it doesn’t mean we’ve arrived at the best decision. So, didn’t mean to insinuate that human beings are irrational. That was just my clumsy way of saying things.
P.S. I agree with Tennessee here:
But this would be a definition different in context from what I’m trying to say.
Things will start to get irrational.
You mean backfire, right?
Maybe, but what I actually meant was Yin & Yang.
I’m transcedentalist, remember?
Exactly why, I really couldn’t say, cos you know, it’s like a never-gona-happener.
Why? Cos relativity remember? I was inspired by a master here yesterday, can’t recall who though.
Yes, okay, we are multi-faceted human beings. Do you mean yin and yang, as in balance of rational and irrational?
exactly