However, energy supply is not the only issue confronting us. Resource depletion, and carbon and other harmful emissions, are crucially the result of the consumption habits of the wealthiest 10% or so of the globe’s inhabitants. Globally the richest 10% generate 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and the richest 1%, 80% of that total. Without curtailing this waste we stand no chance of survival. In Part One of the book, I outline a theory which permits the use of the concept of utopia to designate a real or existing state of affairs, in which prominence is given to equality, sustainability, and providing a sense of well-being which I orient around the idea of belongingness. Part Two then surveys the history of the tradition to identify problems of the wider strategy of promoting sustainability by looking at which variants of the tradition have been most successful in promoting a reduction of wants without entailing personal misery on their populations. The psychology of consumerism, and a brief history of its development from the late 18th century, along with the debate on luxury, are also considered. Many of the controversies in this field result from the bewildering variety of definitions attached to “utopia” and “utopianism”, and in particular a reluctance to separate out the three main components of the latter, literary utopias, intentional communities, and utopian ideas or ideologies. Utopia is often wrongly identified with “perfection”, although we find crime, war, slavery and divorce in More’s paradigmatic text. To my mind “perfection” is a concept inherited from theology which ought not to be identified with utopianism, though we do occasionally encounter it in Christian utopianism. (Think of John Humphrey Noyes “Perfectionism” or “Bible Communism” and the Oneida community.) There are some secular equivalents: Condorcet writes of “true perfection of mankind” being achieved when all humanity had achieved a high level of civilisation. But utopias typically take human fallibility into account, and attempt to regulate behaviour without expecting that anyone can ever be “perfect”. They may be “perfectibilist” in the sense of striving for much better societies. But they never end in “perfection”. The psychology of the small group is central here to regulating behaviour without requiring stringent policing and physical punishment. We consent voluntarily to join groups and maintain their norms where we see benefit in so doing. We do not seek to evade the rules or become free riders where we accept that when everyone keeps to the rules the society functions much better. At the same time, our education systems must attempt to foster more co-operative behaviour. Competition has its place, but we must have a much stronger sense of communal ethos if we are to make the sacrifices necessary to creating a sustainable planet. My own response, after following this scenario across some forty years, is spelled out in a new book, Utopianism for a Dying Planet: Life After Consumerism. My arguments rest on accepting the premise that the current scenario is as dire as can be, that we do genuinely face the prospect of extinction, and therefore that tinkering with the present system is a waste of time. Much more radical solutions, and a much more radical “green new deal”, are required, which will include a fundamental change in our outlook towards nature and towards the consumption of resources.

An urgent and comprehensive search for antidotes to our planet’s destruction, Utopianism for a Dying Planet asks for a revival of utopian ideas, not as an escape from reality, but as a powerful means of changing it.Ninthly, we require a vibrant feminism which results in equalising gender opportunities across society. Women, who possess considerably more power than men in disposing of household budgets, need full choice over their reproductive capacities, which will reduce family sizes. In the face of Earth’s environmental breakdown, it is clear that technological innovation alone won’t save our planet. A more radical approach is required, one that involves profound changes in individual and collective behavior. Utopianism for a Dying Planet examines the ways the expansive history of utopian thought, from its origins in ancient Sparta and ideas of the Golden Age through to today's thinkers, can offer moral and imaginative guidance in the face of catastrophe. The utopian tradition, which has been critical of conspicuous consumption and luxurious indulgence, might light a path to a society that emphasizes equality, sociability, and sustainability. As a matter of principle we cannot understand utopia without confronting dystopia, for they are intimately interrelated. Much greater social equality is upheld in nearly all utopian visions, whilst extreme inequality is typically associated with dystopia, and with current neoliberal societies like Britain and the US, and kleptocracies like Russia. So we will need a Universal Basic Income, a four-day work-week, the guarantee of universal health care and so on. Right-wing “utopias” typically rely on the labour of the many to support the ideal lifestyle of the few — think of Nazi Germany, but also white supremacy racism generally. Enslavement, pervasive fear, widespread disinformation, and oppression of minority groups typifies these “utopias”, which are dystopias for the minority. So if we accept a modified version of the Morean paradigm of utopian republicanism, greater equality and widespread consent must define any future utopian vision. Introducing a world defined by these qualities is of course vastly different from merely imagining their presence. The transition to sustainability will involve many sacrifices, not least by the wealthy who will have to fund most of it. I have in mind a world where the cities where most of us live are made vastly more pleasant places; where a universal basic income ensures the means of life; where public pleasures provide the means of greater sociability; where free public transport alleviates the pain of temporary loss of some long-distance travel; where local communities and local identity become the means of overcoming that creeping alienation which has done so much to define modernity; and where an overwhelming sense of having averted catastrophe unites us as never before.

There can now be no viable political theory which does not centrally offer an analysis of humanity’s long-term future. And all forms of existing social and political theory which rely on ideas of an indefinite expansion of production, consumption, and population growth, which include most forms of both liberalism and Marxism, are no longer relevant and must be superseded. So we are at a real turning-point in history. What do you believe is the connection between utopia and action? Does utopia help motivate and mobilize in ways that other kinds of messaging do not? Should we, with Marx, be worried that utopia can be counter-revolutionary? Note: The post gives the views of its authors, not the position USAPP– American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. A vast new apparatus will be needed to introduce the necessary changes in energy production and consumption, and to ensure climate justice, and that a fair distribution of the very substantial costs of the transition to sustainability does not fall unduly on those less responsible for the incipient catastrophe. The obsession with consumerism will have to be supplanted by greater self-sufficiency, voluntary simplicity, and the satisfaction of needs rather than wants. A society defined by belongingness cannot be conjured out of nothing, but must rely on precedents of viable human behaviour. For most of us, by contrast to past utopianism, which has often urged a “return to nature” on the land, city life defines our basic existence. But cities are often unliveable, and created or developed largely for profit rather than for human life. In Utopianism for a Dying Planet: Life After Consumerism (Princeton University Press, August 2022) I conjecture that group theory indicates that neighbourhood identity can provide a vital form of belongingness in large modern cities, to counter the sense of alienation which living in large masses often produces. But cities will also have to become much more pleasant and sustainable, even as temperatures rise significantly in the coming decades. They will have to become much greener, with many more parks, outdoor plazas, and public meeting places, free of most automobile traffic, and easier to move around in, by free public transportation. Festivals and subsidised communal activities will need to provide many more opportunities to meet and enjoy the company of others – I term this a neo-Fourierist approach, after the famous French socialist Charles Fourier. The future utopia must be made as “attractive” (one of Fourier’s favourite terms) as possible. These features will allow us to compensate for a decline in attachment to luxuries and unsustainable consumption, and the many attendant difficulties and frugality which transition to a sustainable society will entail, by ensuring greater means of self-expression and forms of communal pleasure.To the doomers, in one corner of the ring, despair freezes action, and a sense of chilling remorse is supplanted by numbness which denies the possibility of any reprieve. To the denialists, in the other, none of this is real, and abundant profits await those willing to continue the exploitation of nature. You discuss the concern that utopia’s alleged drive towards perfection makes it totalitarian. How do you respond to other arguments that utopia is authoritarian because it requires or enforces a certain type of participation from individuals, e.g., that their behaviour is somehow improved, that they are more community-minded, kinder to one another, etc? Do you think that there is anything to the accusation that utopia is illiberal in this sense? In the context of the climate crisis, do we have the time to be worried about this type of concern? Those who follow scientific narratives will have seen the widespread abandonment of any likelihood of keeping to 1.5°C warming, even within this decade. To those minded to join up the dots, forest fires, melting glaciers and icecaps, record temperatures in the Arctic and elsewhere, spell out one narrative: we have reached a turning point in our battle against nature, and we are staring at imminent defeat. Everyone interested in the past, present, and future of utopianism will find something of value in this book, as well as things to argue against. Here I want to focus on one point where I diverge from Claeys. Throughout Utopianism for a Dying Planet, and in his others writings on the utopian tradition, Claeys is adamant that it is necessary to draw a distinction between utopianism and science fiction. They are different genres, with different aims and ambitions. In Utopianism for a Dying Planet he makes the point in several places. Science fiction, he writes, is “generally excluded” from his analysis (18n38); elsewhere, he contends that utopian fiction “is a form of fantasy fiction but is closer to the realistic or realizable end of the spectrum, compared with the more extreme fantasy of science fiction” (27). This move follows, in part, from his commitment to the enhanced sociability model of utopianism; he wants to exclude science fiction narratives because, on his account, they do not engage extensively with this topic. As such, they are not serious instances of utopianism. I am not persuaded by this boundary-work.

In the face of Earth’s environmental breakdown, it is clear that technological innovation alone won’t save our planet. A more radical approach is required, one that involves profound changes in individual and collective behavior. Utopianism for a Dying Planet examines the ways the expansive history of utopian thought, from its origins in ancient Sparta and ideas of the Golden Age through to today’s thinkers, can offer moral and imaginative guidance in the face of catastrophe. The utopian tradition, which has been critical of conspicuous consumption and luxurious indulgence, might light a path to a society that emphasizes equality, sociability, and sustainability. Predicting our climate future: what we know, what we don't know, what we can't know October 12, 2023 As a matter of principle we cannot understand utopia without confronting dystopia, for they are intimately interrelated. Much greater social equality is upheld in nearly all utopian visions, whilst extreme inequality is typically associated with dystopia, and with current neoliberal societies like Britain and the US, and kleptocracies like Russia. So we will need a Universal Basic Income, a four-day work-week, the guarantee of universal health care and so on. Right-wing “utopias” typically rely on the labour of the many to support the ideal lifestyle of the few – think of Nazi Germany, but also white supremacy racism generally. Enslavement, pervasive fear, widespread disinformation, and oppression of minority groups typifies these “utopias”, which are dystopias for the minority. So if we accept a modified version of the Morean paradigm of utopian republicanism, greater equality and widespread consent must define any future utopian vision. You discuss the concern that utopia’s alleged drive towards perfection makes it totalitarian. How do you respond to other arguments that utopia is authoritarian because it requires or enforces a certain type of participation from individuals, e.g., that their behaviour is somehow improved, that they are more community-minded, kinder to one another, etc? Do you think that there is anything to the accusation that utopia is illiberal in this sense? In the context of the climate crisis, do we have the time to be worried about this type of concern?Luxury, Sociability, and Progress in Literary Projections of Utopia: from Thomas more to the eighteenth century Radical changes in individual and collective behaviour may be required to mitigate the impact of climate change over the coming decades. Drawing on a new book, Gregory Claeys argues that a utopian outlook can provide the impetus for transitioning to a more sustainable way of life. We doen er alles aan om dit artikel op tijd te bezorgen. Het is echter in een enkel geval mogelijk dat door omstandigheden de bezorging vertraagd is. When self-styled ‘realists’ respond to looming environmental collapse by defending business as usual, utopian thinking becomes itself a form of realism. Dispelling the illusions of those who have not understood the magnitude of the social and personal changes needed to confront our current crisis, Claeys presents a forceful account of the twenty-first-century utopia we must embrace as a condition of planetary survival.”—Kate Soper, emeritus professor of philosophy, London Metropolitan University

A society defined by belongingness cannot be conjured out of nothing, but must rely on precedents of viable human behaviour. For most of us, by contrast to past utopianism, which has often urged a “return to nature” on the land, city life defines our basic existence. But cities are often unliveable, and created or developed largely for profit rather than for human life. In Utopianism for a Dying Planet: Life After Consumerism (Princeton University Press, August 2022) I conjecture that group theory indicates that neighbourhood identity can provide a vital form of belongingness in large modern cities, to counter the sense of alienation which living in large masses often produces. But cities will also have to become much more pleasant and sustainable, even as temperatures rise significantly in the coming decades. They will have to become much greener, with many more parks, outdoor plazas, and public meeting places, free of most automobile traffic, and easier to move around in, by free public transportation. Festivals and subsidised communal activities will need to provide many more opportunities to meet and enjoy the company of others — I term this a neo-Fourierist approach, after the famous French socialist Charles Fourier. The future utopia must be made as “attractive” (one of Fourier’s favourite terms) as possible. These features will allow us to compensate for a decline in attachment to luxuries and unsustainable consumption, and the many attendant difficulties and frugality which transition to a sustainable society will entail, by ensuring greater means of self-expression and forms of communal pleasure.In what way is utopianism distinct from the broader categories of hope, wishful thinking and the imagination? Indeed Claeys admits that the line is hard to hold. This is most notable in the twentieth century and through to the present. After all, many of the most prominent utopian (or dystopian) writers of the era, including H. G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Ursula Le Guin and Kim Stanley Robinson, are at once canonical science fiction writers and regarded as among the most important contributors to the utopian tradition. (Margaret Atwood is a more awkward case, because she long denied – implausibly – that her work was science fiction, even as it was widely read and analyzed as a prominent example of it). This isn’t just a matter of locating writers in the appropriate genre, or of recognizing the utopian claims of much science fiction. Rather, it speaks to both a conceptual point about the character of utopian thought and an historical point about what happens to utopianism in the twentieth century. Gregory Claeys unfolds his argument through a wide-ranging consideration of utopian literature, social theory, and intentional communities. He defends a realist definition of utopia, focusing on ideas of sociability and belonging as central to utopian narratives. He surveys the development of these themes during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries before examining twentieth- and twenty-first-century debates about alternatives to consumerism. Claeys contends that the current global warming limit of 1.5C (2.7F) will result in cataclysm if there is no further reduction in the cap. In response, he offers a radical Green New Deal program, which combines ideas from the theory of sociability with proposals to withdraw from fossil fuels and cease reliance on unsustainable commodities. A timely rethinking of the usefulness of the utopian tradition in the light of climate change and the consequent necessity to add in sustainability as one of its essential components.”—Gareth Stedman Jones, author of Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion This blog post is based on book, Utopianism for a Dying Planet: Life After Consumerism (Princeton University Press, 2022) and first appeared at the LSE EUROPP blog.