This article provides a critical analysis of Jeremy Rifkin’s Entropy. It points out logical fallacies in the author’s views on modern medicine, the development of third world countries, and international organizations, and questions whether his proposed transition to a low-entropy society is a realistic solution.

Introduction

Humans have always wondered about the future that is not yet here. How humanity will live in the future has been a regular topic of writing and drawing contests since elementary school, and many movies and literary works have dealt with the subject. People’s views of the future can be divided into two main categories: utopian and dystopian. In Andromeda Nebula and The Bull’s Hour, Russian author Ivan Yefremov wrote that the development of science and technology will positively change humanity’s future. In contrast, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell portrayed the future in a negative light in Brave New World and 1984, respectively. Jeremy Rifkin is a prime example of the latter, and in his classic book Entropy, he is a critic of civilization. Rifkin argues that the Newtonian worldview, which insists that society progresses, is holding humanity back. He argues that the law of entropy, which states that the sum total of all energy in the universe is constant and that entropy is constantly increasing, is the key to understanding the world. However, as I read Entropy, I found logical fallacies in many of his arguments, especially in his views on modern medicine, the development of Third World countries, and international organizations.

The main points

First, the author points out that the increasing concentration and specialization of healthcare and the increasingly sophisticated medical apparatus are linked to enormous energy consumption. He cites pharmacologist Silverman and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, who argue that reagents and tests are increasingly entropic. He even argues that modern medicine is not contributing to the decline in mortality, citing the fact that life expectancy in the U.S. was on an upward curve until the 1950s and hasn’t changed much since then. As I read this section, I realized that Rifkin is being myopic by focusing only on the tangible and macroscopic. His argument is akin to the development of trains after the invention of the steam engine, where he argues that modern technology is not as advanced as in the past because there is not much difference between the early trains and today’s high-speed trains. In the Middle Ages and up until the modern era, the human body was poorly understood, the causes of disease were unknown, and there was no concept of hygiene and healthcare. However, the discovery of germs by Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch, the invention of penicillin by Alexander Fleming, and the development of surgical techniques by William Stewart Halsted in the late 19th century represented a quantum leap in medicine. The rise of modern medicine has shown that previous achievements were only the tip of the iceberg, and many scientists are still working tirelessly to solve unsolved problems. Even if, as Rifkin claims, the discovery of DNA repair mechanisms hasn’t led to a tangible lifespan extension, it’s no less important than Jenner’s work in developing a vaccine for smallpox, which reduced mortality by a quarter. Considering that current medical advances have reached a critical point beyond which we cannot adjust, his argument is flawed.
It’s also hard to agree with his argument that we shouldn’t take antibiotics because they can cause problems like vitamin deficiencies and tissue destruction in the body. It’s clear that no drug or treatment used in modern medicine is a panacea. They can have side effects, and for some people, they can be devastating. However, this is not a reason to stop treatment and leave people dying. What we need to do is continue our efforts to minimize side effects and personalize care for each patient. Rifkin’s call to return to the past to bemoan the side effects of modern medicine is unrealistic.
Another aspect of the book that struck me was his discussion of the appropriateness of development for third world countries. He argues that the faster the U.S. and other industrialized nations convert resources into economic goods, the fewer resources will be left for future generations and other countries, and that they should voluntarily limit their material wealth to avoid this. While this may seem like a criticism of the selfish development of the developed world, there’s a core argument behind it. Rifkin deplores the fact that Third World countries are pushing industrialization to keep up with developed countries like the U.S. He argues that poorer countries should stop industrializing to prevent the growth of entropy. But this is a selfish, US-centered view. The developed world has enjoyed material abundance by using the resources of Africa and Asia at its disposal, consuming a great deal of entropy in the process, and now that the Third World is about to reap the benefits, it is self-justifying to move the ladder away.
Ernst Friedrich Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” comes to mind. Both Schumacher and Rifkin criticize modern economics for being based on greed and selfishness. Schumacher, however, offers more realistic and concrete solutions. While Rifkin criticizes all technology for destroying the environment, Schumacher offers an alternative: technology with a human face. His argument that technology should be redirected to serve humans rather than destroy them is more convincing than Rifkin’s. When it comes to development in the Third World, Schumacher also suggests adopting an intermediate technology between traditional and high-tech.
At the end of the book, Rifkin argues that multinational corporations and international organizations weaken societies. However, these organizations are essential for the development of the Third World and the transformation to a low-entropy society through the redistribution of wealth. The author reveals a contradiction in his argument that societies collapse when wealth is monopolized by a small group, yet he criticizes international organizations for weakening society.

Conclusion

Since the Industrial Revolution, advances in science and technology and the social changes they have brought have sometimes harmed and sometimes benefited humans. In Entropy, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes only these side effects, arguing that we should abandon what has worked so far and move to a low-entropy society. But that’s like arguing that we shouldn’t use knives because they can be used to kill people, ignoring their other uses, such as cooking and building. Rather than throwing them away, it would be wiser to develop the good uses of knives and be wary of the bad ones.