Protopia vs. Utopia: The Case for Incremental Progress

Fiction allows to extrapolate on the consequences of a technology using a different part of the brain: When we are actually designing or building, we have blinders on trying to achieve a specific vision; fiction allows to switch gears, take a step back, and think about the implications of what we are doing. Because we can’t figure out rigorously the implications of something that has not been built, let alone deployed, that is where fiction becomes an extremely valuable tool.

The concept of “utopia”, of a world that has attained of state of perfection, has been used as a foil by which to critique the present. The idea is that by imagining a perfect society, we can identify the flaws in our current one and work towards improvement. However, utopias necessarily involve a rejection of the present and a demand for radical change.

The concept of “protopia” offers a refreshing alternative to traditional utopian thinking, and in many ways represents a more optimistic and pragmatic approach to societal improvement, because it comes from a more nuanced appreciation of the complexities of human society and the challenges of progress.

A utopia is an imagined perfect society where social problems have been solved and human needs are universally met. The term was coined by Sir Thomas More in his 1516 book “Utopia,” combining Greek words “ou” (not) and “topos” (place) to literally mean “nowhere” or “no place” — a clever wordplay suggesting such perfection may be unattainable.

Classical utopias typically feature:

• Complete social harmony
• Absence of want, suffering, and conflict
• Perfect political and economic systems
• Technological or social advancements that solve fundamental problems
• Universal wellbeing and fulfillment

The concept of utopia has been a powerful force in shaping human aspirations and social movements, inspiring visions of a better world and critiquing the flaws of existing societies.

Utopias, despite their aspirational quality, often contain deeply pessimistic assumptions:

1. They suggest that current systems are fundamentally irredeemable and must be completely replaced
2. They imply that meaningful progress is impossible without a total transformation
3. They set up perfect end-states that, by definition, can never be achieved
4. They frequently require sacrificing present wellbeing for an idealized future that never arrives
5. Historically, utopian projects often collapse or become authoritarian when the perfect vision meets human complexity

In this way, utopian thinking can be surprisingly cynical - it rejects the possibility of meaningful incremental improvement and often demands conformity to a single vision of the “perfect” society.

The idea that progress can only come from radical, all-encompassing change can be paralyzing and counterproductive, leading to disillusionment, apathy, dangerous social experiments in pursuit of an unattainable ideal, or even authoritarianism in the name of achieving utopian goals.

“Protopia,” a term popularized by Kevin Kelly, offers a more constructive framework:

Protopia is a state that is better than today by a small, achievable amount. It embraces the idea that progress comes through continuous small improvements rather than revolutionary leaps to perfection.

This approach is more useful because it:

• Recognizes that progress is a process, not a destination
• Encourages practical action in the present rather than waiting for perfect conditions
• Allows for diverse paths forward and multiple experiments
• Acknowledges trade-offs and human complexity
• Creates resilience by not pinning everything on achieving one perfect vision
• Celebrates small victories and builds momentum through visible improvements

Protopian thinking maintains hope and direction while avoiding the disappointment and potential authoritarianism of utopian visions. It suggests that the future is neither a perfect paradise nor a hopeless decline, but rather a place we actively build, one small improvement at a time.