As I said elsewhere:
you imply that cost can outweigh utility over time — and if the cost outweighs the utility then it is not a rational decision, I would posit.
I entirely agree with that. Where is the contradiction?
If anything, the issue really boils down to the definition of what is meant by ‘rational.’
As I said before: rational = serving one’s long term interest = over the long term providing utility > cost.
If what is meant is that a decision is consciously calculated by a sentient being then, yes, even a net negative outcome is rational.
No. It is possible to calculate (I’d call it reason) and still end up with an irrational choice.
which is a patently fallacious leap of logic — the two dimensions are unalike and we cannot compare apples with aircraft.
So you no longer mean that I am contradicting myself, but that I am making a fallacious leap of logic… because you say that you cannot compare cost and utility? Or what? Sorry to be dense, but I really don’t understand what you’re driving at.