In this blog post, I will examine Jeremy Rifkin’s theory of entropy and his arguments regarding a low-entropy society, and consider the possibility of moving toward a better “new society” by leveraging knowledge and technology—rather than regressing to the past.
“Entropy.” This term is a physical concept introduced by the scientist Clausius in 1865 to explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To put it simply, this law states that in all phenomena in the world, energy transitions from a usable state to a less usable state, and order transitions from an ordered state to a disordered state. In his book ‘Entropy’, Jeremy Rifkin centers his argument on the term “entropy”—which had previously been merely a scientific concept—to fundamentally critique the problems facing all of humanity and advocate for the establishment of a new worldview and way of life.
Currently, many people are optimistic that as history progresses, humanity is moving toward progress and maturity, and that an increasingly better future lies ahead. However, based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Rifkin argues that, in reality, as time passes, the flow of energy increases and disorder throughout the environment intensifies, leading humanity toward decay and chaos. Rifkin first views energy as the driving force behind all of history to date and believes that the objects we see and the activities we perform are also manifestations of energy transformed into various forms. Based on this idea, he argues that every era—from ancient Greece to the present—has been composed of environments with distinct energy compositions, and that different worldviews have been constructed according to each energy environment.
Rifkin explains that, in the modern era, a mechanical worldview based on the thinking of Bacon, Descartes, and Newton dominates. In other words, people today believe that the way to explore the world is to expand and develop all things as infinitely as possible; from an evolutionary perspective, they believe that the greater one’s ability to secure and utilize available energy, the more likely one is to prevail in the struggle for survival. It is because of this way of thinking that Locke’s liberal theory—which states that “the greater an individual’s efforts, the greater the benefit to society as a whole”—gained such enthusiastic support from the public. Going a step further, Adam Smith’s argument regarding the “invisible hand”—that “each individual always strives to use whatever capital he controls in the most advantageous way, and such efforts inevitably produce the most beneficial effects for society”—has also resonated deeply for a long time. However, Rifkin laments that we are currently trapped in excessively short-sighted thinking. According to his argument, although humanity is currently in the “colonial stage,” where energy supply is relatively abundant, and continues to increase the flow of energy using machinery developed during the industrial age, people must now minimize the flow of energy because the “peak stage”—a phase characterized by limited energy supply—is approaching. He warns that if we fail to reduce the flow of energy, humanity will gradually face extinction, just as other species that were unable to navigate such transitional periods in the past. In summary, rather than presenting specific alternatives, Rifkin uses his book to advocate for a shift toward a low-entropy society by calling for a change in the overall paradigm.
However, South Korean society is always looking ahead and racing forward. Gradual changes have accumulated to the point where the social foundation has been completely transformed. Therefore, rather than simply chanting the clichéd slogan, “Let’s go back to the way things were,” I believe it is more important to efficiently utilize the existing foundation, systems, and assets to usher in a more progressive and better “new society.” Alvin Toffler viewed the modern era as the Age of Knowledge and Information, explaining that information has become a source of wealth and that knowledge is changing and evolving at a rapid pace. American economist Jeffrey Eisenach also identified the existence of “inexhaustible knowledge products” and the “growth of network industries” based on them as one of the defining characteristics of modern society. In other words, he argued that a key advantage of modern society is the ability to enhance the value of other businesses and activities through the production of intangible intellectual property. First, since intellectual property is an intangible asset—unlike material resources—it is difficult to treat it as a subject of entropy in the same way as material energy resources such as oil or coal. Therefore, alongside considerations regarding entropy, we must set as a major goal the expansion of knowledge and information production, as well as the improvement of activities and technologies that utilize this knowledge to reduce entropy generation. The abstract concept of “intellectual property” encompasses not only practical knowledge—such as interactions between organizations, production know-how, customer service, on-site expertise, information and communication technologies (ICT) including computers, the Internet, and mobile phones, energy technologies, design, and marketing methods—but also all academic knowledge, including basic science.
Let us take “energy technology”—one of the various forms of knowledge mentioned above—as an example. Rifkin identified the depletion of energy resources such as oil as one of the primary causes of entropy accumulation. If we devote our efforts to developing the knowledge and technology needed to create alternative energy sources to replace oil, achieve tangible results, and significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, this would constitute a major achievement made possible by the effective utilization of intellectual property—a product of modern society. In fact, renewable energy and energy storage technologies are advancing rapidly, and by 2025, solar power accounted for the largest share of the increase in global energy demand. However, since demand for coal, oil, and natural gas all increased in 2025 as well, it is still difficult to say that these traditional energy sources have been completely replaced. At this point, many people may wonder what to do about the energy used for knowledge accumulation and technological development. Yet, given that extensive research and development have been underway for a long time, and renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are already being applied in industry and daily life, this cannot simply be dismissed as an impossible challenge. If the efficiency of these technologies continues to improve and their adoption expands in the future, there is a possibility that, in the long term, the energy savings achieved will far exceed the energy consumed during the development and transition process. In fact, the global installation of new renewable energy generation capacity reached approximately 800 GW in 2025, with solar power accounting for about 75% of that total.
Additionally, I would like to discuss just how difficult a return to a low-entropy society would be. According to Rifkin, the lifestyle we must adopt in a low-entropy society involves curbing material consumption, living simply and frugally, meeting only minimal needs, and restricting or prohibiting private ownership of resources. However, it is questionable whether modern people in today’s industrialized societies—who have grown accustomed to convenience, mass production, and mass consumption—can truly embrace such drastic changes and consistently endure a lifestyle that requires giving up the material abundance they have enjoyed until now. In fact, even if we simply look back on the day we just spent, we can see how deeply we have been absorbed into modern society. We use public transportation or cars to get to school, take notes on the latest laptops and tablet PCs, and eat a meal—one that has passed through the hands of many people—at the student union cafeteria. Suppose, as Rifkin argues, we specifically refrain from using all modes of transportation—such as buses, subways, and cars—to curb resource consumption. We might conserve visible resources like oil, but in return, we would have to spend more time traveling. In today’s society, where every moment counts and everything moves at a rapid pace, “time” is an invisible yet paramount resource. To achieve any results or make any progress, we must first be granted “time.” We must consider whether it is truly reasonable—simply to conserve “energy” from a scientific perspective—to sacrifice “time”—which, from Rifkin’s viewpoint, can be seen as not generating entropy precisely because the quantity of energy cannot be directly measured. Students would have to spend more time walking to school than usual, thereby reducing the effort and time available for productive activities such as studying and research. Given that a “knowledge-based” society currently serves as both a foundation for production and a source of competitiveness, few people would be willing to give up time and knowledge to return to the past.
Furthermore, returning to the “low-entropy society” advocated by Rifkin would require everyone to adopt a frugal lifestyle and participate in measures such as restricting private property; we must also consider whether everyone would actually participate in such a massive “project” all at once. As we often say in everyday life, people are self-interested. Here, the concept of “self-interest” I am using does not carry the negative connotations commonly associated with it in psychological or philosophical contexts, but rather means that individuals live their lives considering their own interests whenever they make a decision. In other words, people weigh the potential gains and losses for themselves; if the gains outweigh the losses, they make a “rational decision” to act accordingly. I define a person who deliberates in this way to benefit themselves as “selfish.” Occasionally, there are members of the public who call for “noblesse oblige” and hope that the upper class will donate for the sake of society. After the Sewol ferry disaster, when an article reported that a celebrity had made a donation, I saw comments along the lines of, “If anyone can donate, why don’t others with more money have any intention of doing so?” that garnered a lot of support. Of course, donations can be put to good use for society, but since donating is not an “obligation,” some people may choose not to donate based on rational judgments—such as “it would be better to spend this on my family” or “I want to invest in myself”—in order to make choices that are more beneficial to themselves. I believe the example mentioned earlier and the actions Rifkin advocates for returning to a low-entropy society share a similar context. Of course, it would be ideal if everyone lived frugally and gave up their private property for the sake of society, but there will undoubtedly be people who refuse to comply based on rational considerations such as, “I only live once, so I don’t want to live frugally for the sake of my own happiness,” or “I worked hard to acquire this private property, so I can’t just give it up so easily.” This will make the transition to a fully low-entropy society extremely difficult.
Jeremy Rifkin accurately pinpoints the problems of our time, coolly explains their severity, and issues a warning to us. However, it was disappointing that he advocated a “return to a low-entropy society” as a solution. As consistently discussed in the main body of this essay, given the significant progress we have already made, returning to the past is realistically difficult. Of course, reducing energy consumption and using resources efficiently will remain important, and advancements in renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies can also serve as crucial means of addressing these issues. However, it is difficult to solve the problems currently facing humanity solely by abandoning our existing social infrastructure and technology and reverting to the past. Therefore, rather than “opening the door to the past,” it is far more important to make good use of the knowledge base that underpins our current society—as exemplified by the development of energy technologies—to create “new breakthroughs” and, through those breakthroughs, move toward a better “new society.”
