"Reason's Revival: Navigating the Social Landscape of Thought in a Hyperconnected World"

Where does your consciousness reside? Is it confined within the confines of your skull? I mean, that's where your brain is located — and your brain engages in the intricate processes of memory, planning, judgment, and problem-solving. However, consider this: you also recall and plan using external tools, objects like these and that. Problem-solving and judgment involve a myriad of external factors as well. Upon reflection, you realize that while the brain is essentially a wet mass of fat and protein, no more substantial than a block of tofu, the MIND is something far more expansive. It's an ever-expanding entity composed of not just organic tissue but also elements of wood, stone, steel, and the collective consciousness of people. Thanks to communication, we can even extend our minds to others, making them extensions of our cognitive abilities. By merely asking, we tap into their memories, perceptions, and knowledge. No need for me to become an expert in car repair, medical practice, rubber vulcanization, or omniscience — others handle that for me, just as I contribute to their knowledge pool. We are a species of individuals intertwined in a colossal, interdependent organism, a frenzied blend of flesh and concrete, a 'techno sapien' fueled by imagination and passion actualized through the esteemed faculty known as REASON.

The narrative asserts that reason guides us towards profound knowledge and optimal decisions, propelling advancements in life expectancy, reduced suffering, enhanced collaboration, and a trajectory likely to transcend time itself. But is this narrative foolproof? The organ we employ for reasoning takes eons to evolve, yet the products of reason burgeon swiftly and show no signs of deceleration. In the next forty years, we are set to construct a new city akin to New York each month. More concrete was laid globally in the past two decades than the entire 20th century saw in the United States. This growth signifies an elevation in global quality of life, where electricity, manufactured goods, food, comfort, and transportation become more prevalent. Yet, shadows loom, indicating that reason and logic grapple with the complexity of our creations and their unforeseen repercussions.

Nearly every facet of contemporary life involves processes releasing molecules with imbalanced electrical charges. This characteristic causes them to trap and re-emit thermal radiation, delaying its escape into space. The consequence: a surge in severe weather events, not attributable to any individual storm but intensifying the overall frequency and extremity. What's at stake isn't merely inclement weather — it's impending disaster: more lives lost, more property destroyed, more droughts, hunger, famine, an influx of refugees, and an exacerbated reliance on the very systems causing these predicaments. Annually, we discharge approximately 51 billion tons of such gases, and the imperative is clear — we must strive for zero emissions. Yet, how does one rethink everything? Who bears the costs and trade-offs? How do we orchestrate collaboration among diverse local and national governments, considering that what proves effective in one context may fail in another? The challenge extends beyond mere things — it encompasses reshaping habits, traditions, and values. Achieving consensus becomes intricate when the problem is intangible, distant in space and time, requires solutions with varied impacts, and, as a product of science, carries inherent uncertainties.

Philosopher Timothy Morton describes entities distributed massively across time and space, so viscous that they adhere to everything they touch as HYPEROBJECTS. Civilizations advancing at the speed of reason inevitably confront hyperobjects. The absence of evidence for intelligent life beyond Earth has led to speculation about a potential GREAT FILTER, a hurdle most civilizations fail to surmount. Our impact on the planet might serve as such a filter. Bill Gates, in "HOW TO AVOID A CLIMATE DISASTER," explores the requisites for resolving this impending crisis. This collaboration with Gates seeks to unravel the intricate connections between reasoning and our approach to hyperobjects.

While it's tempting to advocate for enhanced rationality as a panacea, what if reasoning isn't ideally suited for our current state? The exploration delves into behavioral inertia, the inclination to persist in current actions, rooted not in flaws but in the adaptive survival strategies of organisms. Behavioral inertia can impede innovation but also safeguards against unintended consequences. It plays a role in navigating the invisible and non-immediate impacts of emissions, affecting distant lives and future generations.

Transitioning to the essence of reason, it is portrayed as a method of making inferences — extracting new information from existing knowledge. Eratosthenes' calculation of Earth's circumference exemplifies reasoning's capacity to move beyond instinctive conclusions. The narrative contends that reasoning, a characteristic that set humans apart, facilitated progress in logic and mathematics, transcending our animalistic nature. However, the paradox arises: if reasoning is a pinnacle trait, why isn't it universally shared, and why does disagreement persist?

The Enigma of Reason, as coined by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, challenges the assumption that disagreements arise due to irrationality. It critiques the common lament for more rationality, suggesting that reasoning operates as a social activity more than an individual pursuit. Humans occupy a cognitive niche, relying on reasoning and cooperation. The social theory of reasoning posits that its purpose is not solely truth-seeking but also social decision-making. Humans exhibit biases, revealing an inherent inclination to provide justifications, often separate from the actual reasoning process. Intuitions, operating outside conscious awareness, influence beliefs, and are intertwined with reasoning, a process influenced by social dynamics.

Confirmation bias, the tendency to favor information confirming pre-existing beliefs, aligns with the social theory, portraying reasoning as a group activity where individuals seek to convince others. The theory justifies the coexistence of seemingly irrational biases in reasoning. While recognizing the flaws in individual reasoning, the narrative pivots to the wisdom of crowds, emphasizing the collective ability to process information more effectively than any individual. This wisdom, historically harnessed through deliberation, is waning in the modern era as lone reasoners proliferate and technology fosters echo chambers.

The internet, a platform amplifying diverse perspectives, also facilitates disengagement and reinforces like-minded communities. The complexity and specialization of modern issues exacerbate the challenge of well-informed reasoning. The narrative advocates for a return to reasoned deliberation, proposing national deliberation days and even contemplating a lottocracy, where decisions are made by randomly selected citizens. The reintegration of reasoning into its social roots, as demonstrated in Ancient Athens with the use of lotteries, is presented as a potential solution.

As the narrative concludes, it reflects on the potential impact of implementing such strategies, fostering greater understanding among individuals and mitigating biases through collective reasoning. The future of reason, it posits, may entail a return to its roots, with a renewed emphasis on collective deliberation and decision-making. Ultimately, the narrative urges a reevaluation of the role reason plays in shaping our civilization, challenging the prevailing narrative and envisioning a future where reason serves its original social purpose.