Utopia

A State We Shouldn't Reach.

The term utopia is often used to describe an idealized society, one where conditions are perfect and human evils like corruption, hatred, or greed have been eliminated. The word itself comes from the Greek ou-topos, meaning “no place,” which is fitting. Utopia has always been more imagined than real.

In modern political language, however, the term is often used far more concretely. Socialists and communists frequently describe utopia as a society defined by social and economic equality, where material insecurity disappears and life become largely free from worry, poverty, or suffering. In their framing, utopia is not just a vision but a goal. A state we can reach once the right systems are designed and implemented.

This question of utopia came up for me while reading Mises, specifically his discussion of originary interest. Originary interest is the idea that humans always value present action over future action, not because of greed or markets, but because action unfolds through time. To act is to choose now instead of later. That structure never disappears.

That lead me to a simple thought experiment. What happens to originary interest in a perfect world. In a world where agents are immortal, resources are abundant, and material scarcity has been eliminated.

Intuitively, this is where utopian thinking expects tension to disappear. But when you actually run the experiment, it does not. Even in a post scarcity world, we still have to choose how to act in the moment. We cannot do everything at once. We cannot pursue every possible future simultaneously. Time forces prioritization.

The moment choice exists, friction exists. Not because the system failed, but because time imposes structure on action. In other words, the friction utopia promises to eliminate is not a bug of our current system. It is a feature of being human.

This is why there can be no static utopian end state. Originary interest never disappears, because choice never disappears. And quite honestly, who would even want to live in such a world?

A static utopia is not only unrealistic. It’s boring.

What exactly happens in a world where nothing resists us? Where every need is met automatically and every outcome is known in advance? Where there is no urgency, no challenge, no pressure to respond creatively to changing conditions? What do we do all day?

Without friction life becomes maintenance rather than creation. There is nothing to sharpen our thinking, nothing to test our limits, nothing to challenge us, nothing to force innovation or coordination. Comfort replaces curiosity and stability replaces development.

Nearly every meaningful human advancement has emerged from constraint rather than abundance. Scarcity forced innovation. Friction forced cooperation. Failure forced learning. Remove those forces and you do not get flourishing. You get stagnation that only feels peaceful at first.

So why does the idea of utopia remain so appealing?

Because it promises rest. It promises relief from uncertainty and from the responsibility of making choices. It offers a vision where the hard parts of being human are finally behind us. But those hard parts are not incidental. They are the source of progress itself.

In trying to design away tension, utopian thinking designs away progress. In promising a final solution, it ends the story. Human progress is not something that converges on a final state. It is an open ended process of adaptation, experimentation, and evolution.

A finished world is not a human one. A living world is.

Enjoying this post?

I’m working full-time, in school, and still cranking out these Substacks because I believe this work matters.

If you want to support me, send me a ☕️ coffee on Strike (⚡️ or lightning): 3,000 sats (~$3 | 2,742 sats-4)

✨alisafolds@strike.me

Every bit of caffeine fuels these essays and ideas. 💡📚☕️