John Tainer "increasing irrational, emotional and anti-science movements?" Are you certain there is some clear increase? We used to have Lysenkoism, we used to have Marxism, we used to have post-modernism (the last two had been even quite popular in intellectual circles), how to detect that there would be some extra irrationality above usual background level?

"Yet, in an increasing number of governments there is growing nationalism that uses emotional arguments including fears and resentment against immigrants that lack a factual basis" I'm not sure whether this is especially good example of being irrational, as there are quite a few quite credible estimates on associated cost (on either net negative tax contribution of particular ethnic groups or staggering differences in crime rate), suggesting that from economical perspective some forms nationalism and keeping those more costly population out could be regarded as highly rational approach from locals perspective.

"It terms of food, environment, and disease - it is one world. No one can wall themselves off from these problems with nationalism." Shall I provide you with studies from my field, on how ex. New Zealand successfully cut itself from the rest of the world during COVID-19 pandemic? :D In terms of food due to mixture of non-tariff instrument (introducing very stringent requirements that outsiders are unlikely to pass) and subsidies most of developed countries have also quite closed food market. Moreover both the USA and the EU are producing surplus, so have food security on their own with quite hefty safety margin.

I wonder whether you are not missing one key point: it's not choosing between perfectly working global cooperation vs. shortsighted nationalism, but more between trying again luck in with highly dysfunctional global order vs. trying to fix local problems with minor extra surcharge on protecting borders. Then the rational (from game theory perspective) option could be very case dependent. If anything the whole shift towards nationalism could be seen as simply masses noticing that their establishment is underdelivering and its policies are causing them cost of living crisis, thus with bounded rationality trying their luck with something else. (this trying luck with nationalist delivering better policies is not going well and most of them are not get re-elected next time, but to some extend trying to roll the dice at that point does not look obviously irrational)

I agree with you that this is a serious problem. And 100 years ago, I would have said that nothing should be done, the history of civilization and natural selection will solve this problem themselves. Because those states and nations that are too keen on anti-scientific things become weak and uncompetitive, and over time either die out or are captured by more developed ones. But in the 21st century, when the whole world has become global, the rise to power of populists and obscurantists like Trump creates a problem for all of humanity. What to do? Sane people should unite and promote their politicians. Ideally, of course, it would be necessary to introduce an educational and intellectual qualification, but this would violate democracy. But when it comes to the survival of the human race, democracy can tolerate it. Otherwise, the plot of the film "Idiocracy" would still be an optimistic version of the future.

This speech caught my attention “How Much Time Is Left Until the End of Trump,” a message iby Noam Chomsky calling for collective action, truth, and awakening beyond personalities and politics. I guess its computer aided since Chomsky has had a stroke recently. What are your thoughts on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS9MJNSlgww

A unified, science-driven approach is essential to effectively tackle the world’s pressing problems and ensure a sustainable, healthy future for all.

The erosion of fact-based discourse reduces public engagement and trust in science, which is essential for addressing these interconnected issues.

It is vital to:

Promote science literacy and critical thinking among the public.

Foster international collaboration that transcends nationalistic boundaries.

You John Tainer have articulated a critical and complex challenge facing our global society. The convergence of urgent issues—medical crises, environmental degradation, food security, and security threats—requires coordinated, science-based solutions. However, rising nationalism and emotional, often unfounded, narratives threaten to undermine rational decision-making and international cooperation.

There is an imbalance for most of us in trying to make things better versus our new class of virtual kings who are now employing technology from science to very successfully push their own interests and increasingly control most of the world's resources. In contrast the former kings, the new ultra wealthy who can control and fund information sources of all kinds have relatively unlimited sources to fund their efforts. For most of us, fighting lies with truth and the emotions of fear and envy with logic and fairness takes time and effort we have little of but we make no money by trying to improve the world for us all. Yet, by bending truth to suit their interests, the ultra-wealthy need exert little personal effort yet greatly further increase their wealth. This spiral may prove deadly for peace, justice, and truth as well as facts, reason, and logic. As the ultra-rich have few limits on their power and opportunities to grow their wealth by daily bending truth, I guess that the only possible hope for most people will be unity in efforts to clarify and fairly solve problems with our best possible science and technology.

John Tainer "the new ultra wealthy who can control and fund information sources" Are you certain that they are any more dangerous than had been for decades traditional mass media in hands of oligarch or governments? Because at least here there is much more competitive market than it used to be and part of the reason "virtual kings" raised to power was offering something at least looking more attractive than prior offer. Also the reign doesn't seem that strong as you pick your own "virtual king". Let's imagine that you don't like let's say Musk's X. (It's fashionable to dislike him in this season :D ) Then you pick either Blue Sky or Telegram, pending whether in your view Musk is censoring too little or too much.

"This spiral may prove deadly for peace, justice, and truth as well as facts, reason, and logic." That's really something which one could have been equally well say about legacy media for decades.

Keep in mind that big part of this "irrationality" is not that some views are actively promoted, but part of the process is that some of non-elite views are no longer suppressed.

"We" - the governments you criticize are those chosen by their citizens - the "we" you ask have already made their decision.

"There is an imbalance for most of us in trying to make things better..." Suggest you not posture your virtue . Others likely feel they too are trying to make things better.