In a modern world where humanity relies on machine civilization, is it possible to talk about sustainability without ignoring the law of entropy?

Jeremy Rifkin argues that modern mechanical civilization promotes energy waste and increased entropy, which will eventually lead to the end of humanity. He criticizes materialism and proposes a new worldview that follows the law of entropy, but lacks a discussion of the positive aspects of technology and sustainable development.

 

In Jeremy Rifkin’s book, entropy is defined as “in thermodynamics, the amount of change that an object undergoes when it is heated.” Theories such as Newton’s system of laws and Einstein’s principle of relativity are accepted as true because no phenomena have been found to date that do not fit them. However, there are some things that trump theories, called laws, and these are the laws of thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics states that the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant, and the second law states that matter and energy change in only one direction. The second law of thermodynamics refers to the law of entropy, which is the foundational law of the author’s worldview and the title of this book.
To explain the second law in more detail, it is as follows Energy or matter is always changing from a usable form to an unusable form, from an ordered state to a disordered state. For example, you can’t pick up milk that spills on the floor, and you can’t burn wood to get heat and light and then burn the ash that remains. An absolute law that you might take for granted is the law of entropy. It reminds us of the cold reality that energy always moves in the direction of depletion and warns us of the limits of material civilization.
Jeremy Rifkin uses this absolute law to warn us that modern mechanical civilization inevitably leads to energy waste. He argues that the worldview dominated by Newton’s theoretical system is incomplete, and that human society is moving toward its end, not toward progress. This argument clashes directly with the optimistic progressivism of modern society. While the prevailing perception is that technological advancement enriches humanity, Jeremy Rifkin disagrees, arguing that a mechanistic worldview can have destructive consequences.
Using various historical examples, Jeremy Rifkin reminds us that humanity has a long history of not conforming to the laws of nature, and that all attempts to reverse them have ultimately failed. For example, during the Industrial Revolution, the large-scale use of fossil fuels was believed to put humanity on a path to prosperity, but it took a huge toll on the global environment. The depletion of energy resources and global warming are among the most prominent consequences.
He also argues that hunter-gatherer societies like the Bushmen led better lives than modern humans, and criticizes modern life for becoming overly dependent on machines and materials. In Jeremy Rifkin’s eyes, traditional lifestyles were ideal because they were more in tune with nature than modern materialistic societies, emphasizing the importance of mental satisfaction and social harmony over mere material abundance. Criticizing the dehumanizing nature of modern civilization, he strongly argues that humanity needs to adopt new values.
However, Jeremy Rifkin’s argument has its limitations. While he criticizes machine civilization for being wasteful, he doesn’t say enough about the positive effects it has had on humanity. For example, advances in medicine and information technology have improved the quality of human life, and many people are living longer. In addition, productivity gains from technological advances have enabled more people to fulfill their basic needs, which contributes to human mental satisfaction.
In this context, Jeremy Rifkin’s discussion can be criticized for being somewhat one-sided, overlooking the positive aspects of machine civilization and the mental development it has brought to humans. While the message of his book certainly raises important issues, a more balanced perspective is needed. Humans are part of nature and must live within its laws, but at the same time, technological advances can help us find new ways to coexist with nature.
Finally, there is room for Jeremy Rifkin’s law of entropy to be interpreted as a challenge to sustainable development, rather than a simple warning of the end of human civilization. He could argue that humanity should move towards developing and using renewable energy sources instead of depleting them. Indeed, alternative energy sources such as solar and wind energy resist the law of entropy and offer a new energy paradigm.
Therefore, Jeremy Rifkin’s law of entropy can be taken as an important lesson to remind us that we need to rethink our way of life that relies on conventional energy resources for a better future.