The Dynamics of Utopia and Dystopia

Abstract:

Utopia and Dystopia are systemically one in the same in many respects. The natural human impulse for social autonomy, that promotes Entropy and thus Novelty via normative influence, which may or may not amend Normalization, is something to be weighed as well. The concern of either Utopia or Dystopia occurring is centered around the loss of the social autonomy or freedom that produces the novelty, that promotes the increase of Complexity, that develops the natural world. Of course this suggests that general autonomy is a bit of an illusion; as it is promoted by natural predispositions.

Utopia:

The concept and context of Utopia are of an environment that is simply too good to be true. The ease of a simple and extraordinarily good life is one paid for with the lack of social autonomy and or personal freedoms; that can result in the mistakes and failures that the system in turn pays for. The system does however receive a return from mistakes and failures. The cost of not having everyone “on the same page” is lack of a higher degree of cooperation; however the educational experience of mistake and failure pays high dividends. Utopia would likely, also have the cost of lack of social and natural development. Creating the perfect society, and then implementing it doesn’t seem to be such a favorable outcome. This effects not only any given state of social development, but also future viability as a species.

The manner in which we as humans have developed over the ages is through experimentation and the lessons of error. Not surprisingly this is much the way that all of nature has developed. In the course of such development, a balance is struck of autonomy and cooperative influence. It’s the natural “give and take” of the natural promotion of the increase of complexity.

Apparently, this leaves us with a decision as to how much of our social autonomy to sacrifice in the interest of cooperation with others. This of course effects the systems that we live under; and the quality of life that they are capable of producing. Insufficient cooperation would hinder our systems from raising the standard of living. Over abundance of cooperation would have an adverse influence on our personal freedoms. Both would be a negative influence on the development of our systems and of our species.

Dystopia:

Dystopia is similar to Utopia in that social autonomy is sacrificed; however it is in the context of disparity. It’s the experience of a second class; while a first class enjoys autonomy and a high standard of living. It’s an attempt at balance; with two unbalanced classes. This is in contrast to game theoretical behaviors in that one class is experiencing more expenditure and less return than the other. Humans are predisposed to find this state unfavorable; and one would expect a revolutionary correction to restore the balance; as has occurred historically.

Many historical social systems could be considered dystopic and a few current ones could as well. Game theoretical behaviors tend to result in revolution or even revolt. Favoring relative equality in expenditure and return is deeply ingrained in human behavior; and has precedent historically. This however may have a weakness concerning the degree of disparity; when the standard of living is generally favorable. A sufficient degree of comfort is likely to appease a second class; to some degree. Revolution isn’t likely to be on the minds of those who are generally comfortable. One could expect that a path toward Dystopia is not improbable; however a pure Dystopia itself does seem to be.

Disparity is difficult to measure. The complexity of human social systems makes it difficult to account for all of the costs that individuals accrue in the course of their lives. Comparing and contrasting expenditure and return isn’t as simple as one might suppose. It’s not difficult to sympathize with someone who suffers for the sake of others and feels entitled to more returns. This is especially the case with those who have benefited from their suffering. Also, some endeavors are more resource intensive than others and require more returns. Many of these endeavors have had large influences on the standard of living; such as modern medicine and the domestic technologies that have come from extremely expensive naval vessels. Instances such as this suggest that pure Egalitarianism is not only improbable but also probably not in the best interest of the collective. This of course leaves us to carefully consider what degree of Egalitarianism is most beneficial.

The Paradox of Natural Autonomy:

Since autonomy is promoted with intrinsic self-organization, it’s a bit of a misnomer. Autonomy itself is merely behaving as nature intended. The natural predispositions to promote Entropy and the resulting Novelty, for the sake of greater Complexity aren’t contextually how we would commonly associate autonomy. It seems that autonomy from the natural world is a perplexing illusion.

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose.” ~ Chris Christofferson

Closing:

Considering the trade offs concerning Utopia and Dystopia leads to interesting inferences. For instance, the standard of living in a Utopian society is likely to eventually be achieved in a liberated society without the loss of social autonomy. This is because the strict organization is likely to restrict the development of the society. A Utopian society would be likely to stagnate; where a liberated society is more likely to produce more Complexity and thus a rising standard of living. It stands to reason that the liberated society would eventually match the standard of living of the Utopian society. This same principle could be used to criticize Dystopian societies as well. There is every reason to infer stagnation in a society that doesn’t employ it’s human resources in a distributed manner toward the standard of living. A liberated society would seem to be capable of approaching and surpassing such a society in the long term. It wouldn’t be in the interest of the ruling class to be a ruling class. This is something that has historical precedent. The current standard of living is made possible in part by the liberation of the new world. Now the average person enjoys a standard of living that old world kings couldn’t even dream of. It seems that striking a balance between autonomy and cooperation is what is in everyones’ interest.