This blog post examines whether Jeremy Rifkin’s proposed ‘low-entropy society’ could be the solution to the environmental and social problems facing modern civilization.

Introduction

Humans have always been curious about the future yet to come. How humanity will live in the future has been a staple topic for writing and drawing contests since elementary school, and many films and literary works have explored this theme. People’s visions of the future can broadly be divided into utopian and dystopian perspectives. Russian author Ivan Yefremov, in ‘Andromeda Nebula’ and ‘The Bull’s Hour’, described how the advancement of science and technology would positively transform humanity’s future. Conversely, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell depicted the future negatively in Brave New World and 1984, respectively. Jeremy Rifkin is also a representative figure of the latter camp, clearly demonstrating his role as a critic of civilization in his seminal work, The Entropy Revolution. Rifkin contends that the Newtonian worldview, which asserts society progresses, actually hinders humanity’s leap forward. He emphasized that the law of entropy—stating the total energy in the universe remains constant while entropy ceaselessly increases—is the key to understanding this world. However, while reading ‘Entropy’, I found logical flaws in several of the arguments he presented, particularly regarding modern medicine, the development patterns of Third World countries, and his views on international organizations.

Main Argument

First, the author points out that in the health and medical field, the progress of medical centralization and specialization, along with increasingly sophisticated medical equipment, is linked to massive energy consumption. Borrowing from pharmacologist Silverman and the former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, he criticizes how pharmaceuticals and tests increasingly drive entropy. He even argues that modern medicine has failed to contribute to mortality reduction, citing the fact that while U.S. life expectancy rose until the 1950s, it has shown little change since then. Reading this section, I felt Rifkin was focusing only on the visible and macro-level, adopting a myopic perspective. His argument resembles claiming that the pace of modern technological advancement is slower than in the past because there is little difference between early trains and today’s high-speed rail, despite the development of trains since the invention of the steam engine. Until the medieval or early modern periods, understanding of the human body was limited, the causes of disease were unknown, and concepts of hygiene and medical systems were absent. However, from the late 19th century, Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch’s discovery of bacteria, Alexander Fleming’s invention of penicillin, and William Stewart Halsted’s development of surgical techniques signified a quantum leap in medicine. The advent of modern medicine revealed that previous achievements were merely the tip of the iceberg, and many scholars continue to research relentlessly to solve problems that remain unresolved. As Rifkin argues, just because research uncovering DNA repair mechanisms hasn’t yielded visible life extension effects, it doesn’t mean it’s inferior to Jenner’s research that developed the smallpox vaccine and reduced mortality rates by three-quarters. Considering that current medical progress has reached a tipping point beyond our control, his argument is flawed.
Furthermore, it is difficult to agree with his assertion that antibiotics should not be taken because medication can cause problems like vitamin deficiency or tissue damage. It is self-evident that drugs and treatments used in modern medicine are not panaceas. Side effects can occur, and for some individuals, they can cause fatal harm. However, we cannot abandon treatment and leave people dying from illness for this reason. What we must do is minimize side effects and continue efforts to provide personalized medicine tailored to each patient. Rifkin’s argument, lamenting the side effects of modern medicine and advocating a return to the past, is unrealistic.
Another striking aspect of this book was its discussion on the appropriateness of development for Third World countries. The author argues that as advanced nations like the United States rapidly convert resources into economic goods, fewer resources remain for future generations and other nations. To avoid this, he contends we must voluntarily limit material wealth. While this appears to criticize the self-serving development patterns of developed nations, the core argument lies hidden beneath. Rifkin views Third World nations pursuing industrialization to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with developed countries like the US with regret. He argues that poor nations must halt industrialization to prevent the increase in entropy. However, this seems like a self-centered, US-centric viewpoint. Advanced nations have enjoyed material prosperity by freely exploiting resources in Africa and Asia, consuming enormous amounts of entropy in the process. Yet now, when Third World countries seek to reap those benefits, the attempt to pull the ladder up is nothing but self-justification.
Ernst Friedrich Schumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’ came to mind. Both Schumacher and Rifkin criticize the problems of modern economics based on greed and selfishness. However, Schumacher offers more realistic and concrete solutions. While Rifkin criticizes all technology as destructive to the environment, Schumacher proposed the alternative of ‘technology with a human face’. His argument that technological development should be redirected to serve humanity rather than destroy it is more persuasive than Rifkin’s. Regarding Third World development, Schumacher also proposed introducing intermediate technology between traditional and advanced technology.
Rifkin argues in the book’s conclusion that multinational corporations and international organizations weaken society. However, these institutions are essential for pursuing a transformation toward a low-entropy society through Third World development and wealth redistribution. The author reveals a contradiction: while asserting that society collapses when wealth is monopolized by a minority, he simultaneously criticizes international organizations for weakening society.

Conclusion

Since the Industrial Revolution, advances in science and technology and the resulting social changes have sometimes harmed humanity and sometimes benefited it. In ‘Entropy’, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes only these negative effects, arguing that we must abandon what has been considered right until now and transition to a low-entropy society. However, this is akin to arguing that knives should be discarded simply because they can be used to kill people, ignoring their other uses like cooking or construction. Rather than discarding knives, it would be a wiser choice to develop their good uses while guarding against their bad ones.