THE LIMITS TO UTOPIA

This essay began originally as a consideration of what kind of societies will come into existence when space colonies are created. Sooner or later, we will create space colonies, when is hard to predict. In 1956, the movie “Forbidden Planet” was released. In the prologue, the narrator states that “by the end of the 21st. Century man had gone to the moon…”. The writer was off by one order of magnitude. On the other hand, in the early seventies, many people were sure that we would be building space colonies by now. So much for predictions, optimistic or pessimistic.

If one reads the papers on the subject, there is a sense of an underlying idea that space colonies can be, indeed must be, built to fill all needs of the colonists. There is a Utopian ring to the talk. The colonies were originally proposed to have about one to two million inhabitants. They would be Utopian societies on a scale unseen in history but would they work even if the technical problems were solved?

Is the society that can provide all of our physical needs a utopia? What are the prospects for such a society and what are the inherent dangers in setting one up? How ought we to do it? What have the Utopians taught us? What can we learn from their models?

I will argue that there is little or nothing to learn from them since the concept of utopia is itself defective for several reasons to be found in information theory. These reasons have to do both with the limits of knowledge and the assumptions inherent in utopianism. These questions are relevant to the space colonies because we should realize that any attempt to set up a "perfect" society is doomed, and to be avoided at all costs. No matter how much we may realize our material wants, these do not define us, and while the realization is a necessary goal, it is not the primary goal. Indeed, any goal for the human race that implies any state of perfection is fatal e.g. Nazism and Marxist-Leninism are both Utopian ideas.

Utopias & Cults

Utopias

Webster's Third Unabridged Dictionary defines a Utopia as "a place, state or condition of ideal perfection, especially in laws, government, and social conditions." The most significant aspects of this definition are that it includes perfection and that it is somewhat redundant1. No matter what the utopia, certain conditions must be met for its achievement. These are:

Agreement -- If we are to reach perfection, we must all agree what perfection is, and we must all agree to its achievement. Any deviation from perfection is, by definition, imperfection. Any significant disagreement is in itself imperfection.

Control -- We must have the control over events necessary to change them in the direction of perfection. If we do not have this control, then perfection is achievable only through the working of a divine will. If it takes appeasement of that divine will to make Utopia work, then we must be able to control the events that will bring about the state of grace. This explains the megalomania which is inherent in theocracies.

Microscopic Information -- (Microscopic information is related to entities and contrasts to macroscopic or statistical information). We need to know either all of the conditions present in the imperfect society or what all of the conditions should be. Then we can either change incorrect conditions to correct conditions or we can work toward the correct conditions. Microscopic information is necessary to achieve control in either case.

Utopias and Information Theory

Information theory presents several problems for Utopian concepts. The most serious is the concept of perfection, of final truth. As we have seen, no system can proved that it has achieved truth. A perfect society could only know that it is perfect if told so by a greater society! If you can't prove that you have achieved your goal, how do you know when to stop working towards it? If you work past its achievement, you create change from perfection.

Even if you say you'll know because you'll feel it, the moment will be brief. In an expanding universe, there are no steady states. In local systems, there are always expanding (perturbing) elements to upset the equilibrium of your utopia e.g. the human spirit.

If you discount this element, then consider the consequences of a society in which all of its members are in agreement. One great example of agreement was the "blue ant" phenomenum. If we all agree, then we all have the same information. In a society where everyone holds the same view of reality we have a maximum redundancy of information which is maximum noise which is maximum entropy. Nothing is more certainly fatal to a society than that all of its members should be in total agreement. A viewpoint held by all is no viewpoint at all.

The control required to achieve utopia is not available since the microscopic data is not available. We can only know with statistical certainty what is happening. There is no certainty, so there is no dogma and there is no utopia. Any attempt at control adds effort but not information. Attempts at control are entropic.

Conclusions

On Utopias

Any attempt to build a utopia is an exercise in contradictions. Steps to collect the kind of control data required would produce only inaccuracy which results in a "working away from" the goal. Attempts at total agreement serve only to reduce information and create entropy. A redundant definition for utopia is appropriate since it is a redundant concept.

Attempts to create utopias result in increased attempts at control, dogmatic thinking and entropy. In human society, entropy appears as noise, destruction and death. The Third Reich was a classic attempt at utopia.

Towards what then, ought we to work? In a society filled with truth, each citizen will have maximum information, which means each citizen has different information. The truth is random and leads to maximum diversity amongst individuals. Truth is unprovable and anti-dogmatic since no one can be certain of its possession. It can never be an "end" state. It always involves change.

A classic example of scientific dogma is Laplace's view that an intelligence which knew where all the particles were, and knew all of the energy vectors would know everything with certainty and the future, like the past would be present to its eyes.

David Layzer's answer to this is, "If the theories I have presented are correct...not even the universe itself ever contains enough information to specify its future states. The present moment always contains an element of genuine novelty and the future is never wholly predictable.2

Information theory leads us to conclude that we should work towards an open society with a maximum diversity of information.

On Cults

Cult leaders work on capturing and perverting the infatuation response. The infatuation response occurs when one is primed or disposed to fall in love. Cults are very successful with young people who are primed for falling in love and with older “soft-headed” types who are always ready to respond to an emotional appeal.

After a pitch to a group, cults often have a key question along the lines of “Did you get it?” “it” is the elation that comes with infatuation. If you respond, “Get what?”, the cultists know that you didn’t. If you listen to a cult leader speaking to a group, you will hear the kind of laughter that occurs with couples in love. It has a fond and giggling quality.

Folly is the flip side of infatuation. Perverted love is the hallmark of cults.

On Perfection

The concept of perfection could be worthy of an essay in its own right, but since utopias are an exercise in perfection, there is an obvious conclusion.

Perfection is a flawed concept!