Why humans will never pass a logic test

Ask anyone what sets humans apart from animals, and 99% will mumble some incoherent babble about our reasoning capacity.

But just how rational are we? Let's conduct a silly thought experiment. Nasa recently reported the discovery of seven new planets. (W e love "discovering" things; just ask the inhabitants of the area known as KwaZulu-Natal how, one fateful Christmas, Vasco da Gama "discovered" the land that they'd always known .)

But let me not digress.

story_article_left1

Nasa reckons these planets are potentially habitable by human beings. Here's the experiment:

Of the seven planets, the one likely to have conditions most similar to earth is Trappist-1f. Now let's suppose there are "sentient" beings on Trappist-1f and that they send a delegation of Trappist tourists here, to skulk around, enjoy our pristine beaches and get to know us. (These Trappists are not to be confused with members of the Catholic Order of the Strict Observance who founded Mariannhill Monastery in said Natal, circa 1880.)

Let's suppose they asked us why we whiz around in cars, knowing full well that with each kilometre we drive, we're running down the clock towards a point where this planet can no longer sustain human habitation. I imagine that the nearly-president of the US, Al Gore, would yell, "That's what I've been saying!" Obama would cast his eyes downwards, sheepishly. Msholozi would ask the Trappists why we should stop driving our cars when the projected disaster is only occurring around the year 2100.

Of course, in our humanocentric view of the world, we keep saying moronic things like "We must stop killing the planet". Actually, no. The planet will be just fine long after we're extinct, the same way it was OK for billions of years before we appeared.

What we actually mean is, "Our species is committing suicide" - which is not necessarily a terrible thing for the planet. In fact, it would probably be a much better planet. Coral reefs, Amazon forests, dung beetles and the only two rhinos left after the last human has perished would have a party at the 7-star Cheval Blanc hotel at St Barts, popping Dom in celebration.

It therefore stands to reason that if the UN Environment Programme truly loved the environment and this planet, it would probably encourage humans to increase cattle farming exponentially, accelerate our deforestation efforts and consume oil and coal at a faster rate. It would tell humans to stop mucking around and speed up the process of human extinction.

But that wouldn't be very anthropocentric, would it? However, humans suffer from a hectic psychological disorder: cognitive dissonance. This usually spawns another condition, confirmation bias. That's just a fancy way of saying that humans don't like to acknowledge things that don't confirm what they already believe.

So, back to our thought experiment. The Trappists would lower the bar. I call this the Basic Education model: "If they can't get 30%, let's lower the pass mark to 20%". In their quest to have us pass the rationality test, the Trappists would offer us low-hanging fruit: our diet.

Is there any logical reason we prefer beef as our main protein source and not, say, legumes? Oh, so you like the taste of flesh, even if it kills you? OK then. Why not farm locusts and other creepy-crawlies that attack your crops then? No? Your urban centres are creaking under the weight of rodents, so surely you should ... ?

story_article_right2

At this point, the exasperated Trappists would lower the bar to 15% and home in on South Africans. You folks once had a president who decided your climate was not conducive to wearing a suit and a tie. He always seemed so relaxed in his Madiba shirts. Why did his successors revert to those colonial relics that make them look like anal-retentive pricks in 38°C Karoo heat?

No lucid response? OK, let's make this easy for you, the Trappists would offer, their antennae twitching tetchily. Let's go for 10%: we have noticed that when your species is on the phone, you use a lot of facial expressions and gesticulate wildly to make points, knowing the other person cannot see you . ..

Your species chews about $30-billion worth of gum every year. What the heck is that about?

And why do you have something called "reality TV" when you should be aware that anyone with a TV camera aimed at them alters their behaviour?

Some years ago, a colleague in Packaging Development sent an irate e-mail to the entire department, inquiring as to who had removed the bubble wrap from her desk. I asked if she needed it for a factory trial. Her response: "I like to sit at my desk and pop bubble wrap". When the Trappists discover just how many humans spend hours popping bubble wrap, they'll turn in a minus-20% score for logic and navigate back to their planet, shaking their heads sadly.

• Follow the author of this article, Ndumiso Ngcobo, on Twitter: @NdumisoNgcobo