Are perfect, micromanaged worlds utopian or dystopian?

Utopia or not

A blog reader emailed me last week with a question, and I thought I’d reply best by writing a new blog post (so you guys can peek into the discussion as well).

His question was:

Does living in a perfect world indicate that you indeed live in a “Utopia?” Or is a society that’s “too perfect” in fact dystopian?

This is actually a brilliant question. Where is the line between a society that’s perfectly managed to the benefit of all, and a society that’s micromanaged to the detriment of personal freedom and individuality?

Is there any chance for a perfect Utopia to exist, without dystopian elements?

I can’t dig into utopian versus dystopian society models without asking what the core features of each are. Despite the many forms such societies could take, they’d all have to have some core principles in common, such as

Utopian societies would all have, at least

  • some form of extended personal and social freedom,
  • social, economic and technological equality,
  • the ability to avoid or abolish disease and pain,

Dystopian societies would all have, at least

  • a priviledged subset of individuals in a position of power,
    which inevitably results in
  • an unequal distribution of rights and duties,
    and that creates
  • social, economic, and/or technological inequality (resulting in war, famine, etc.)

Let’s look into these a bit.

Each person has their own vision of what freedom means. To some, freedom is the ability to do whatever they want (while respecting laws) without being judged and condemned for it. To others, freedom is the exact opposite: the ability to judge and condemn others based on their own beliefs, which usually include the belief that their belief is inherently superior and grants them more rights. Ahem. To others still, freedom means the absence of laws and social distinctions alltogether, a form of peaceful anarchy. Something that’s in fact impossible to sustain.

While the definition of freedom isn’t necessarily agreed upon, the definition of equality is: Everyone in a utopian society should have the exact same rights and duties as everyone else. No priviledged few. No powerful few that dictate who serves and who benefits.

But does that mean no ruling power? No government? No law enforcement?

Ideally, yes. If an utopian society comes with all it should come, it would bring implicit social justice and solidarity right along with everything else. Right? Not unless we fundamentally change the human nature — and that would place us in something similar to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Competitiveness and egotism are embedded in our genetic makeup. No society could truly be uniformly free, equal, and in a state of equilibrium without sacrificing our nature, without intervening into our genetic inheritance. Without controlling. And that would make even the best society dystopian by definition.

Technological utopianism — the belief that technological advancements will inevitably bring about some form of Utopia — is based on the understanding that these technological advancements serve the people, the majority (if not totality) of the world’s population in equal measure, and not some corporation, form of government, or limited number of priviledged individuals. That the people have a right to benefit from all advancements in equal measure, and no obligation to do so.

But it’s that “no obligation” part that’s eating this apple from the inside out. If some individuals can opt out, diversity will continue to exist, and where there is diversity there is inequality, and as a result there will always be conflict.

And I think here lies the answer.

A society that’s externally regulated and uniformized (whether by a ruling party or by initial consensus) and not left up to the choices of each individual in part, as generations succeed each other, will be inherently dystopian.

The only true Utopia I can see — apart from an entirely fictional, consensual egalitarianism in which diversity at an individual level prevails but somehow coalesces into peaceful social uniformity — is a world in which each individual can live in the world they see as ideal. A world which each individual experiences reality the way they design it. In which each individual makes their own laws, unifies or segretaes the rest of the world according to their beliefs, and adopts the role they want to adopt for as long as they want. A world in which their choices never impinge on someone else’s freedoms, or alter the nature of someone else’s world. And such a Utopia — as you may have guessed it — would necessarily have to be virtual.

Am I saying something like The Matrix is the ideal, sustainable Utopia?

I am, actually. (Don’t look at me like that.)

For those who exist inside it, a virtual reality that’s tailored to their specific needs IS the ideal, utopian world.

But there’s always a catch. (Happy now?)

Will those individuals’ bodies exist in the “real world” and be tended to, abused or otherwise managed by people who choose not to go virtual? Will the way their bodies are treated affect the way they perceive their lives, and thus the quality of their utopian world? Will the choice to not go virtual put some people in a position of absolute power, thus implicitly creating a dystopia underneath a sheet of utopian fantasy? Or if there are no more bodies to speak off, will these opt-in people essentially be brains in vats? How will they procreate? Will they procreate? Will humanity be thus essentially trimmed down to a handful of people tired of caring for others, eventually pulling the plug and starting all over? Will this society be even allowed to form? And how could it ever come to be? What’s the collected benefit of going virtual? And who pays the electrical bill?

Well, that’s all up to whoever spins the story. 🙂

(Come on, you didn’t actually think I’d answer all of that!)

So what’s your spin?

Published by Veronica Sicoe

Science Fiction Author — I deliver the aliens.

6 thoughts on “Are perfect, micromanaged worlds utopian or dystopian?

  1. Good article, Vero. My spin is based on a pessimistic/realistic view of human nature. Call it evolution or Original Sin, I believe we are both beautifully designed for our environment and thus necessarily flawed in a ‘moral’ sense. Trotsky was once asked to explain what went wrong in the Russian Revolution, and his parable was essentially that where you have bread shortages you have police controlling the queues, and the police will always take the biggest share. My view is that even in more prosperous cultures the human imperative is to strive for the larger share, even in Theocracies. Speaking of which, your point about the ‘micromanaged utopia’ being perhaps even more dystopian is the strongest argument against those who condemn God for not similarly micromanaging us and eliminating this that and the other


  2. That’s one of the best parts of writing. Is making worlds, figuring out the bits, and figuring out where their broken.

    I have one world, the one my most of my scifi work is based on has been going through severe crisis over and over. Most of them has not been caused by the society itself but outside influences.

    However, to repair those outside influences the society tends up falling into semi-feudal system. (There is a great deal of outward mobility, especially if your cool with killing people). The noble families are all descended of the first generations who were heavily genetically modified. And, the citizens are the people who weren’t. The slaves are everyone not rated good enough to be anything else. And, any other random alien race not strong enough to keep from being enslaved.

    There other problem is they don’t have a standard set of Laws, because every little thing is ruled by a committee. The rules those committee can change at any time, because people on them are constantly in flux.

    My twist is constant change and broad freedoms has brought chaos, and injustice to every level, and faucet of life. So, like the Wild West I guess?


    1. Sounds like a complex world. As long as it’s internally consistent, though, complexity should be quite interesting — if it serves the story well. 🙂

      I love creating complex worlds, but ususally only a tiny fragment of my worldbuilding makes it into the actual story. And I think it should be even less (I’ve learned to edit better), but I’ll read worldbuilding heavy stories if they’re exceptionally well told.


      1. That’s true. Most of my world building is not immediately relevant to any stories/novel. It is more for me, I know.

        But, it does help me keep things in mind. The little nuances between individuals, alien races, and factions.

        World building, I think is one of things that if done well no one ever ‘notices’, because it is seamless.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: