The rational mind in an age of chaos: The future of planetary and human well-being

Introduction

I have long sought to understand why people sometimes fail to think rationally. This challenge may never be fully resolved, as there are numerous contributing factors—both known and unknown. Nevertheless, irrational thinking can yield harmful consequences across a wide range of domains, including climate change, biodiversity, resilience, medicine, vaccinations, engineering, construction, architecture, and global peace and stability. It also undermines the effectiveness of institutions and organizations dedicated to advancing knowledge and promoting planetary and human health. Because many of these issues span multiple generations, intergenerational solidarity is crucial. A healthy planet is a fundamental human right, and our built and natural environments must exist in sustainable harmony.

Within the scientific community, this concern has been highlighted by the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and addressed through initiatives such as the National Academies’ webinar and report on “Understanding and Addressing Misinformation about Science.” Emerging technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), hold significant promise for improving human and environmental well-being but also pose risks. Misinformation propagated by AI—especially when lacking attribution, repeatability, or transparency—can magnify adverse outcomes.

The situation is even more critical than it appears. Accordingly, this article takes a broader perspective, examining how society has arrived at a state of diminished rational thinking and exploring the associated risks (Figure 1) to sustain the planet and global society.

Figure 1. Short and Long-term global risks. (Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2025. Graphic produced by illuminem.)

What is rational thinking?

Rational thinking arises from a mind capable of logical and reasonable thought, grounded in facts and data rather than emotions or misinformation. This includes recognizing and avoiding false, inaccurate, incomplete, or selectively presented information, as well as disinformation deliberately intended to mislead. While the rational mind prioritizes facts, logic, and data to draw sound conclusions, it does not dismiss the importance of emotional considerations. Rather, it integrates them appropriately to foster balanced judgment and decision-making.

A rational mind is characterized by the following:

• Driven by logic, research, and intellect
• Compares current experiences to past ones
• Weighs the pros and cons of a situation
• Focuses on resolving problems and achieving goals.

What is rational thinking in science?

Although this section is not exhaustive, it highlights the foundational principles of rational thinking. Grounded in facts, evidence, and rigorous, ongoing analysis, rational thinking advances our collective understanding of both the natural and human worlds. Critical thinking skills are particularly important for distinguishing fact from fiction in our contemporary era of widespread misinformation and disinformation.

Science, as one of the most precise expressions of rational thinking, has traditionally been categorized into four primary domains:

• Natural Sciences: Biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and Earth sciences, which focus on understanding the natural world.
• Formal Sciences: Mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science, which deal with abstract concepts.
• Social Sciences: Disciplines such as economics, history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and archaeology, which examine human behavior and societies.
• Applied Sciences: Fields that apply scientific principles, including engineering, medicine, architecture, and construction.

These categories are interdependent, frequently intersecting—intentionally or otherwise—to shape our understanding of the planet and human existence.

What rational thinking in science is not

• It is not static. Rational thinking evolves as new evidence emerges.
• It is not opinion. While interpretations of evidence may differ, science is grounded in objective analysis rather than public opinion, political agendas, or unsupported claims from oligarchs, autocrats, or others.
• It is not free from bias. However, rational thinking relies on systematic processes—such as peer review, repeatability, and transparency—to mitigate and reduce bias.

Some key aspects of rational thinking in science

1. Objectivity
   Objectivity is essential to scientific inquiry. While human biases inevitably exist, science employs rigorous methodologies—including transparency, repeatability, and peer review—to minimize their impact. Trust, both within the scientific community and among the public, hinges on these processes.

2. Evidence
   Scientific conclusions are grounded in data obtained through observation, experimentation, and analysis. To gain broad acceptance, evidence must be reproducible and independently verified.

3. Hypothesis and Theory
   A hypothesis is a tentative proposition formulated for testing through experimentation. In contrast, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation supported by extensive data and evidence—examples include the Continental Drift Theory and the Big Bang Theory. Theories, therefore, represent a higher level of certainty than hypotheses.

4. Scientific Method
   In the scientific method, hypotheses are formulated after reviewing existing knowledge, ensuring objectivity and structure. Although there is a generally accepted scientific method, more advanced methodologies continue to evolve to address increasingly complex questions.

5. Transparency, Repeatability, Attribution, and Public Trust
   Often referred to as “scientific norms,” these principles underpin the credibility of science. They include:

• • Transparency in methods and materials
  • Repeatable results across studies
  • Proper attribution of prior research.

Emerging challenges, such as misinformation, disinformation, and the misuse of AI, can erode these norms and undermine public trust.

6. Peer Review
   Experts with specialized knowledge of a given field conduct peer reviews. In contexts that benefit from broader perspectives—such as systems thinking—interdisciplinary reviews can also provide valuable insights and foster holistic approaches.

7. Weight of Evidence
   The “weight of evidence” approach evaluates all available data’s quality, consistency, and reliability to determine how strongly it supports a hypothesis. This method prioritizes thorough analysis rather than simply counting supporting or opposing studies.

8. Preponderance of Evidence
   In science and rational thinking, conclusions typically require more than a simple “preponderance of evidence” (i.e., over 50% likelihood). Instead, rigorous statistical methods, replication, and ongoing scrutiny are employed to achieve higher levels of certainty. However, in fields such as environmental science and public health—where decisions often must be made with incomplete data—a preponderance of evidence may guide policy to mitigate potential risks. Examples include smoking-related health measures and climate change strategies, which address probable dangers based on cumulative evidence.

Our Contemporary Times

It is impossible to capture the full breadth of human history or the complexities of contemporary society in a single overview. Societies constantly evolve; no culture can be deemed wholly “good” or “bad.” Nonetheless, specific historical examples illustrate how the trajectory of civilizations can hinge on unpredictable outcomes.

The battles of Marathon (490 BC), Thermopylae (480 BC), and Salamis (480 BC) offer a glimpse of the early struggles that helped lay the foundations for Western democracy in ancient Greece—efforts that were far from guaranteed to succeed. Centuries later, the American Revolution (1765–1783) similarly faced uncertainty; yet the Founding Fathers, drawing on historical precedents, endeavored to establish a sustainable democratic government. Subsequent conflicts, including the American Civil War (1861–1865), World War I (1914–1918), and World War II (1939–1945), reshaped political structures and revealed the precariousness of global stability—despite measures such as the League of Nations formed after World War I to prevent future hostilities. Following World War II, the United Nations was created with a broader mandate to safeguard both planetary and human well-being, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) helped usher in a prolonged period of peace in Europe. Additional factors, such as increased economic interdependence, further reduced the likelihood of large-scale conflict. Still, as illustrated by Robert Crowley’s edited volume, What If?: The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (2001), history might have unfolded differently had key events taken alternate turns. Similarly, chaos theory highlights how seemingly minor incidents can exert profound, unpredictable effects on future developments.

Today the underpinnings of democratic governance appear to be weakening, most prominently in the United States. In 2024, Donald Trump was re-elected president despite widespread concerns about the rise of an autocratic regime. The ensuing political turmoil in Washington (Figure 2) demonstrates how quickly and easily autocratic tendencies can take hold, especially when supported by influential oligarchies and others complicit in this development. Just a few years ago, such developments would have seemed improbable—underscoring the inherent uncertainty of historical progress. Yet this is the present reality. In his 1989 farewell address, Ronald Reagan invoked John Winthrop’s vision of the United States as a “shining city upon a hill,” symbolizing freedom of speech, religion, and enterprise. Today, however, the parallels between Donald Trump’s consolidation of power and Adolf Hitler’s early tactics are striking, raising the possibility that similar patterns can emerge in any nation, including through breaking of established norms. This consolidation of power continues. The impacts to institutions, education, policy, corruption, rule of law, human health and welfare, and the planet can be far-reaching. Despite advances aimed at safeguarding planetary and human well-being, these trends suggest that darker times may lie ahead.

Figure 2. Trump Administration actions January 20-February 12, 2025. (Source: Professor Christina Pagel, 13 Feb 2025)

The autocrat’s playbook

Establishing an autocratic regime does not necessarily require extraordinary cleverness. Instead, it involves a methodical application of specific tactics—many of which have been repeatedly employed by authoritarian leaders throughout history. These tactics include:

• Cultivate a cult of personality
• Insist that falsehoods are true
• Undermine independent media through direct attacks and intimidation
• Use propaganda to manipulate public opinion
• Discredit institutions and sow distrust
• Erode confidence in an independent judiciary, then appoint loyalists to the courts
• Reward cronies and allies with power or resources
• Target vulnerable groups by demonizing them
• Subvert the rule of law to remove legal constraints
• Fuel culture wars to exacerbate social and political divisions
• Threaten to imprison political rivals
• Surround yourself with sycophants who echo your views
• Bypass the legislative process to consolidate power
• Suppress opposition voting through restrictive measures
• Exploit hot-button issues to manipulate public sentiment
• Use your position to enrich yourself
• Erode civil liberties incrementally
• Display contempt for social norms and democratic traditions
• Adopt a victimhood narrative to garner sympathy and power
• Praise other “strong men” or authoritarian figures
• Conflate nationalism and patriotism
• Maintain a disinformation campaign to obscure facts
• Distance the country from historical allies
• Align with dictators or autocratic regimes for mutual benefit
• Create a state-controlled or official press
• Invoke “national security” to justify abuses of power
• Portray yourself as the “common man” while demanding public adulation
• Repeat

By following this “playbook,” autocrats systematically erode democratic structures and norms, often with alarming speed.

This is anything but rational thinking

Such tactics are antithetical to rational thought, infecting and distorting every aspect of a democratic society and its capacity to foster planetary and human well-being. It is far easier to dismantle existing structures than to build something enduring. In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995), Carl Sagan predicted a troubling decline in the United States driven by the erosion of truth. Likewise, John W. Dean, in Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), foresaw the nation’s current predicament, highlighting a radical shift within the Republican Party that has fueled increasingly confrontational, vicious, and hypocritical political discourse. Demagoguery now often supplants responsible dialogue, and self-righteousness displaces conscientiousness, with democracy itself as the ultimate casualty. Alarmingly, these trends coincide with a broader decline in rational thinking and ethical standards, as well as a breakdown in trust and alliances.

George Lakoff’s Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2002) adds further context, examining the cognitive science behind Republican and Democratic worldviews. He argues that these parties diverge fundamentally on issues of morality and family structure—Republicans adhering to a “strict father” model that emphasizes self-discipline, individual responsibility, and self-reliance, and Democrats favoring a “nurturant parent” model that values fairness, empathy, and support for the vulnerable. While it remains unclear how directly these differing moral frameworks contribute to the decline in democratic norms, it is evident that we are entering a period marked by increasing chaos and autocratic influence. What would the “Greatest Generation” think? The success of autocrats stems from a well-honed strategy, whereas a cohesive democratic “playbook” has yet to emerge in a similarly clear, straightforward form.

Toward a democratic playbook

Several recent works aim to address this gap. The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding (2019) offers a detailed approach, and How to Say No to Dominant Leaders (2025) proposes a strategic framework for defiance grounded in behavioral science. This latter text outlines methods such as recognizing dominance-seeking traps, interrupting emotional manipulation, countering transactional exploitation, and fortifying both institutional and psychological resilience. Its conclusion asserts that high-conflict leadership is neither invincible nor inevitable: by applying evidence-based tactics, decision-makers can render autocratic strategies ineffective while upholding institutional integrity. Yet, these democratic strategies lack the simplicity of autocratic tactics, and they are largely academic in nature, making them challenging to implement. Nonetheless, we are entering an increasingly chaotic world with a concomitant increase in autocracy. The autocrats have been successful a long time and their scheme is a practiced one. A democratic response (little d not big D as in a party) must be rooted in rational thinking and organized resistance. While history suggests that the future remains uncertain, there are various views on how it might play out. Nonetheless, history can offer valuable lessons.

A Critical Juncture

Today’s global decline in democratic and civil society is arguably more alarming than even the dire forecasts presented in The Limits to Growth (1972) and its subsequent update, The Limits to Growth +50 (2022). Whether humanity will act swiftly and effectively to safeguard the planet’s health and well-being—or whether the rise of autocracy, misinformation, and disinformation will block such efforts—remains an open question. Only time will determine the outcome.

Why Is Rational Thinking Important?

Rational thinking is vital because it expedites problem-solving, reducing the time, effort, and cost required to develop solutions. In contrast, irrational thinking diverts attention from core issues, prolonging resolution and increasing overall expenditures. Such inefficiencies pose serious risks to the health and well-being of both the planet and humanity—whether in the context of climate change, biodiversity, resilience, medicine, vaccinations, engineering, construction, architecture, or numerous other fields.

In an era marked by widespread misinformation and disinformation, resources that help distinguish fact from fiction are indispensable. For example, Fact vs. Fiction: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Age of Fake News (Lagarde & Hudgins, 2018) provides practical strategies for evaluating information credibility and strengthening one’s capacity for rational thought.

Conclusion

We face simultaneous existential threats to planetary and human health and well-being, exacerbated by multiple global crises and the rise of autocracy—fueled by misinformation and disinformation. This recognition does not diminish the important role played by the private sector, other groups, diverse cultures, and various forms of government. For instance, China is leading the world in renewable energy production, is the biggest global renewable energy investor, and there are many other efforts to improve and sustain the health and well-being of our planet and humanity.

Rational thinking—grounded in evidence, critical analysis, and rigor to minimize bias—is central to advancing our understanding, informing sound policies, and fostering trust. While not infallible, it is designed to substantiate, refute, or refine knowledge at a high level of certainty. Rational thinking is essential for advancing the health and well-being of our planet and humanity.

Emerging challenges, such as the continued misuse of technologies like artificial intelligence and social media, highlight the urgency of embracing rational thinking to address global problems and improve lives. 

We appear to be at the brink of a “perfect storm” of chaos, which could pave the way for further autocracy and widespread calamity. Global leaders must reject this path of chaos; instead, rational minds must prevail. As the doomsday clock moves ever closer to midnight, global collaboration and evidence-based decision-making are imperative for sustaining the quality of both life for humanity and our planet.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.