By : Prof Santosh Kumar ,CEO, IISSM, formerly, Director SAARC Disaster Management Centre & Chief Consulting Editor-ICN
The Puzzle of Rationality
NEW DELHI : Disaster loss data have no emotions. And hence, lack compassion and empathy in long term recovery and risk reduction. Why do we, as human beings, behave in ways that appear “irrational”? We face devastating disasters, mourn collective losses, question the system for a brief time — and then, once the dust settles, we slip quietly back into our comfort zones. Governments and institutions, too, learn little, preferring short-term fixes over long-term preparedness. The same tragedies repeat.
Is this simply irrational behavior, or are we missing a deeper understanding of what “rationality” really means? Traditionally, rationality was defined by economics: individuals are “utility maximizers,” weighing costs and benefits to make the best choice. From Adam Smith’s “economic man” to John von Neumann’s game theory, rational choice theory assumed people acted logically and strategically.
But experience — from daily life to disasters — shows otherwise. Herbert Simon introduced the idea of bounded rationality: people don’t maximize, they “satisfice” with what’s good enough, given limited information and stress. Kahneman and Tversky’s prospect theory showed how fear, loss aversion, and framing distort decisions.
In disasters, this is painfully evident. People cling to homes during floods despite evacuation orders. Leaders divert resources to optics rather than resilience. Citizens, after a brief uproar, return to normalcy, forgetting the lessons of tragedy.
The Paradox of Forgetfulness
After the 2013 Kedarnath floods or the more recent 2025 Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Sikkim disasters, public debates flared: why were warnings ignored? Why was construction unchecked in fragile zones? Why the preventable deaths could not be prevented? Was it inevitable or something could have been done in the pre disaster time? Yet, months later, life becomes normal as nothing has happened. Hotels reopen in the same riverbeds, people start construction in the same risk zone, the so-called development begins with same or rather greater pace, new roads are cut into unstable slopes, and people book pilgrimages again with faith in divine protection rather than engineering safeguards. “Disaster is an Act of God” gets further perpetuated instead breaking stereotype beliefs to disaster risks can be reduced loss can be minimized with reducing disaster mortality. Disaster prevention (risk reduction) is Invisible but high dividend whereas Disaster response is Visible with great optic value-so everybody likes it. Challenge remains making Invisible visible with more of success stories leading to preventing the preventable deaths. But response dominates as it gives opportunity to become visible and closer to the people with relief distribution.
Is this irrational?
Not necessarily. From the individual’s point of view, it is rational:
- Raising uncomfortable questions carries costs — social conflict, fatigue, even risk of reprisal.
- Forgetting helps restore normalcy, reducing anxiety.
- People believe disasters are rare “acts of God” unlikely to strike again soon.
Yet collectively, this behavior is irrational. The same vulnerabilities are reproduced, and disasters recur with even greater losses. This is the paradox: what is rational for the individual is irrational for society.
Faith, Social Practices, and Rationality
Rationality is not only an economic or scientific concept; it is also deeply shaped by religion and culture. What may appear irrational in one frame can be profoundly rational in another.
- In Hinduism, fasting, pilgrimage, and rituals are rational in reinforcing discipline, health, and social order. Dharma (duty) and Karma (cause-effect) provide a moral rationality that binds society.
- In Buddhism, meditation and mindfulness are rational paths to reduce suffering (dukkha) and build resilience.
- In Christianity, charity and Sabbath rest sustain moral order and mental rejuvenation.
- In Judaism, kosher laws and Sabbath practices preserve identity and survival through centuries of adversity.
In Islam, zakat (charity) and Ramadan fasting rationally redistribute resources, build empathy, and strengthen community solidarity.
- Indigenous traditions embed ecological rationality: sacred groves, hunting taboos, and water rituals sustain ecosystems and intergenerational balance.
Even “irrational” taboos often mask rationality when seen in context — like food restrictions aligning with seasonal hygiene, or sacred landscapes preventing overexploitation.
Why this Matters for Climate and Disasters
In the face of climate change, these diverse rationalities become invaluable. Scientific rationality provides us with models, forecasts, and technologies. But alone, it cannot drive people to act.
Here is where moral and religious rationalities come in:
- Temples, mosques, and churches often serve as the first shelters during disasters.
- Faith-based charity mobilizes relief faster than bureaucracy.
- Indigenous ecological practices sustain forests and watersheds where state agencies fail.
The real challenge is bridging scientific rationality with cultural rationalities. For instance, early warning systems work best when trusted religious or community leaders amplify them.
Disaster risk reduction policies are stronger when they respect local customs and spiritual values rather than imposing purely technocratic solutions.
The System’s Advantage
But why do systems — governments, corporations, even international bodies — continue to take advantage of our forgetfulness? Because they know that once people slip into comfort zones, accountability fades. Contracts are awarded without scrutiny. Unsafe construction is permitted. Climate adaptation is postponed for “development priorities.” In democratic countries this also never becomes the priority of the political parties by putting disaster risk reduction agenda as part of election manifesto and its process. And nobody asks for it.
This is a rational choice for elites: maximize control and resources while public memory is short. Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine showed how crises are exploited to push unpopular reforms, banking on citizens’ exhaustion. Thus, the silence of citizens and the opportunism of systems reinforce each other.
Towards a Plural Rationality Framework
If we are to survive the coming decades of climate turbulence, we need a new way of thinking about rationality. Not as a cold, mechanical calculation, but as a plural and human-centered framework:
- Scientific Rationality: For forecasts, engineering, and technology.
- Religious/Moral Rationality: For compassion, solidarity, and long-term commitment.
- Social/Ecological Rationality: For sustainable practices rooted in local culture.
A plural rationality framework recognizes that saving lives is not only about “what is efficient,” but also about “what is meaningful.”
Human Touch: A Reflection
I vividly recall visiting a flood-affected village in North eastern India . While government relief was delayed, the local mosque and temple jointly organized food distribution. A tribal elder told me, “Our gods teach us that in floods, the river belongs to everyone. So, food must belong to everyone too.” Was this rational? By scientific economics, no — there was no maximization of individual gain. By moral and social rationality, yes — it saved lives, reduced conflict, and preserved dignity. Stories like this remind us: rationality is not a single formula. It is a spectrum of human ways of making sense, surviving, and finding meaning.
We live in a world where disasters and climate change will intensify. If we rely only on narrow, mechanical notions of rationality, we will repeat the cycle of amnesia and vulnerability. But if we embrace plural rationalities- scientific, moral, ecological, and spiritual, we may build societies that are not only safer but also more compassionate and resilient. Rationality, in this sense, is not about cold logic. It is about remembering, questioning, and acting in ways that honor both our survival and our humanity.
