In this blog post, we’ll explore the possibility of a sustainable future through Jeremy Rifkin’s theory of entropy, the zero marginal cost society, and the meaning of empathy.
People believe that society is progressing. The majority hold the view that, through advances in science and technology, the world is gradually moving in a better direction. However, Jeremy Rifkin, author of ‘Entropy: A New Vision of Civilization for the 21st Century’, challenges this belief by arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are the key principles for understanding human civilization. The laws of thermodynamics he presents foreshadow a bleak future for humanity while also demonstrating that a transition to a low-energy society is inevitable for humanity’s sustainable survival.
Opinions on Rifkin’s perspective remain sharply divided even today. While some highly value his insight for having keenly pointed out the structural contradictions of modern industrial society decades ago, others criticize his arguments as an overly pessimistic outlook. Indeed, the future indicated by entropy is uncertain and can sometimes seem hopeless. However, Rifkin did not speak only of despair. In a series of works he wrote later, he proposed “empathy” as a more realistic alternative. Perhaps he believed that, since these problems were created by humanity itself, they could ultimately be solved through human warmth and cooperation. In this article, I will first examine the future Rifkin envisioned through the laws of entropy and the social changes he proposed based on the concept of marginal cost, and then consider how empathy can serve as the key to unlocking a sustainable future.
Although the laws of thermodynamics are generally categorized into four, Rifkin focuses his discussion primarily on the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Among these, the core of his pessimistic outlook is the second law—commonly known as the law of entropy. Simply put, he argues that all natural phenomena proceed in a direction of increasing disorder, and that, particularly from an energy perspective, our current industrial civilization is unsustainable.
His argument is relatively clear: since energy resources are finite, as these resources gradually deplete, negative positive feedback loops—in other words, rising prices and economic instability—will intensify, and society will inevitably face a crisis. As energy becomes increasingly scarce, the technologies used to extract and process it grow more complex, and the costs required to manage the disorder generated in the process continue to rise. This rise in energy costs is highly likely to lead to a decline in real wages and an increase in unemployment. Rifkin points out that those who believe economic activity can create new value from worthless materials overlook the simple fact that this process also generates greater disorder and waste.
Rifkin further expands on this discussion in his subsequent book, ‘The Zero Marginal Cost Society’. He argues that innovations in communication, energy, production, and logistics systems will drive a new transformation of human civilization. If the competitive principles of capitalism are pushed to their limits, leading to a dramatic increase in productivity, the “marginal cost”—the additional cost required to produce one more unit of a good or service—could approach zero. If that happens, the prices of goods and services will also drop significantly and, in some cases, may even approach a level that is virtually free. For example, while solar power requires a large initial investment in equipment, the marginal cost of producing additional electricity once the power generation facilities are in place is very low. Of course, equipment maintenance and repair costs continue to accrue, but there is no need to continuously purchase fuel, as is the case with fossil fuels. Because of these characteristics, renewable energy is regarded as an energy supply method with very low marginal costs. As marginal costs decrease in this way, the profit-generating structure—the core driving force of traditional capitalism—gradually weakens, and based on this, Rifkin suggests the possibility of a “Collaborative Commons” emerging.
This concept is deeply connected to the idea of “empathy,” which Rifkin has consistently emphasized in works such as ‘The Age of Empathy’. He believed that humans are not beings who pursue only their own interests, and that in a zero marginal cost society, people are quite capable of acting to benefit others—provided the personal cost to them is not significant. He argued that if public goods are utilized more widely through such voluntary cooperation and sharing, we can move toward a more sustainable society even within the reality of limited energy and resources. In other words, this means that, ultimately, a transition to a low-energy society becomes possible.
Although Rifkin may face criticism for presenting alternatives from a somewhat limited perspective—having focused heavily on the concept of “marginal cost” in his later works, much like he had centered his early writings on the single concept of “entropy” to explain the future of civilization— Nevertheless, his line of reasoning holds significant merit. In particular, while his explanation of renewable energy—including solar power—may be somewhat optimistic, it is logically persuasive; furthermore, the fact that various forms of the sharing economy, such as accommodation and car-sharing, are already operating in the real world also supports his outlook to a certain extent. Of course, some point out that today’s sharing economy platforms are often businesses operating within the market economy and thus differ from communal sharing in the purest sense. However, Rifkin did not advocate for a society that completely excludes the market. He predicted that, just as previous industries did not disappear entirely when the oil-based Second Industrial Revolution took place, traditional capitalist markets would continue to coexist with a collaborative sharing society even amid the new industrial revolution.
However, what is even more important here is not the question of whether to utilize the market, but how to efficiently utilize limited energy resources. Even if the process involves the market, the value of sharing itself does not disappear, and there is ample potential for it to develop in an even more collaborative direction in the future. Of course, even if such a sharing society is realized to some extent, it cannot prevent the increase in entropy itself. Nevertheless, it holds significant value in that it can at least slow down the pace of a civilization hurtling toward catastrophe and enhance sustainability.
Meanwhile, Yoon Jeong-ro points out a commonality between Rifkin and Marx in that both draw on the inherent contradictions of capitalism to drive the transition toward a new society. However, considering that Rifkin critically examined all existing economic systems—including socialism and capitalism—for failing to account for the limits of the economic environment, it seems more appropriate to focus on the value of “empathy”—which he has consistently emphasized—rather than interpreting the concept of a collaborative sharing society as a specific political ideology.
Empathy is a comprehensive ability to understand another person’s difficulties and respond to them cognitively, emotionally, and volitionally. At first glance, this may sound somewhat abstract and idealistic. Consequently, some might argue that even if a society with near-zero marginal costs were to emerge, people would not readily allow others access to their resources. Of course, sharing cannot be enforced, and such arguments could easily lead to ideological debates. However, the sharing that Rifkin refers to is not institutionally enforced but rather voluntary.
Research on mirror neurons—which help us understand the actions and emotions of others—is often cited as evidence that humans have evolved the ability to empathize with others’ emotions and cooperate. If this capacity for empathy is fully developed through proper upbringing and education, a cooperative sharing society—which may have seemed somewhat idealistic—could move one step closer to reality. In this sense, the importance of character education—which cultivates the ability to understand and care for others—becomes even greater. Although it is still difficult to expect a fully realized sharing society due to insufficient educational experiences and social infrastructure, if we continue to foster a sense of community through sustained educational and social efforts, the role of empathy and sharing in society will gradually expand. In that case, a cooperative sharing society would not be merely an unattainable utopia.
Ironically, Rifkin explains that while the increase in entropy weakens our capacity for empathy, it also broadens the scope of empathy. As social conflicts and divisions deepen due to rising entropy, people are more likely to focus on their own survival rather than understanding one another. On the other hand, as industrialization and economic development have enabled humanity to enjoy a more prosperous life than ever before, a foundation has also been laid that allows us to pay attention to and empathize with a wider range of people. This somewhat paradoxical situation can be interpreted not as a contradiction in Rifkin’s own argument, but rather as a presentation of a hopeful possibility for humanity. Rather than merely warning of the end of human civilization and urging people to give up on everything, he may have judged that presenting a vision of building a sustainable future together would be far more effective in eliciting public empathy.
The transition to a low-energy sharing society, as he described it, remains a difficult challenge. However, if all of us—standing at the crossroads leading to a sharing society—gradually shift our perspective toward those around us and put the values of empathy and cooperation into practice, the “Comedy of the Commons” may one day become a reality. No—for the sake of a sustainable future, we must work together to build such a society.
