Utopias (english version)

I. A Lunch Among Friends

I recently had lunch with three friends at a gathering organized by one of them. The organizer is a conservative; the other two are social democrats—one, interestingly, inclined toward libertarian positions on many issues, and the other, not so much.

As often happens in our gatherings, the theme of utopia came up again and once more heated up the debate.

However, my two left-leaning friends do not usually approach the debate with the rigor the topic demands. They rarely give me enough time to properly respond to the questions they raise and almost never allow me to question their own assumptions. Their usual strategy consists of asking successive questions about tangential topics, without ever directly confronting the core of the discussion. What should be a debate thus turns into a kind of inquisition.

For my part — I recognize that I am not free from flaws either — I deliberately resorted to some argumentative fallacies.

Since I know that at the next meeting (which I greatly appreciate) I probably won’t have the opportunity for a more balanced debate, I decided to write this short text. Without any pretension of exhausting the subject, I hope it will allow us to take a step forward in our next conversation.

II. Utopia

Utopia designates an imagined place, society, or state of existence in which everything would be perfect — socially, politically, economically, and morally. It represents an ideal community in which human problems such as poverty, crime, inequality, disease, and conflicts would have been eliminated, allowing people to live in harmony, justice, and fulfillment.

The term was coined by the philosopher Sir Thomas More in his work Utopia (1516), from the Greek ou-topos (“no place”) + eu-topos (“good place”). The wordplay is deliberate: it refers to a “good place” that, however, does not exist anywhere — an ideal that perhaps can never be realized in reality.

The main characteristics of a utopian vision of society usually include:

Perfect governance: wise and just leadership, often presented as non-coercive (which may take democratic forms, benevolent dictatorships, or even the complete absence of formal government).
Equality or economic abundance: suppression of private property in the more radical versions, or at least the elimination of poverty and large wealth disparities; “fair” distribution of resources that guarantees abundance for all.
Social harmony: absence of crime, wars, discrimination, and serious conflicts; strong community bonds or an enlightened individualism.
Moral and intellectual perfection: virtuous, educated, and rational citizens, with vices and ignorance minimized or eradicated.
Technological or environmental harmony: wise use of advanced technology or a return to a simpler and more natural state.

Reality, however, soon imposes itself. There is no consensus — not even among the utopian authors themselves — about what this ideal place would look like, much less about how to achieve it. When the utopian mentality guides those in power, the result usually follows a predictable sequence: first the restriction of freedom of expression, then the limitation of participation in decisions, and finally the violation of the rights of those who oppose the utopia, including the right to existence (but all in the name of a greater good, the utopia imagined by its author).

When restricted to the artistic or intellectual field, utopia can even produce interesting works, though — being generous — naive ones (such as Thomas More’s own Utopia or the lyrics of John Lennon’s Imagine). When, however, it is embraced by rulers with real power — especially the most powerful ones — harm to ordinary people becomes only a matter of time (the sacrifice will be worth it in the end, say the utopians).

III. Alternatives to Utopian Thinking

What, then, would be the opposite mentality that should guide public debate? There is no single answer, but several complementary approaches that, when combined, allow for more prudent and effective decisions.

Let us begin with concrete reasoning.

III.1. Concrete Reasoning

Concrete reasoning contrasts directly with the abstract nature of utopian thinking. While the latter operates in the domain of ideals, universal hypotheses, and “what could be” in a perfect world, concrete reasoning remains anchored in specific and tangible realities: existing conditions, measurable facts, concrete details, and immediate practical problems. It focuses on what “is,” not on what “should be.”

Utopian projects are classic examples of abstract thinking taken to the extreme. Concrete reasoning asks, inescapably: “How exactly would this be built here and now, with real people and the resources available?”

III.2. Conservative Reasoning (especially Burkean)

One of the most classic and robust contrasts is offered by Edmund Burke. The conservative thinker harshly criticized abstract rationalism and the utopian projects that inspired the French Revolution. For Burke, society is too complex and organic to be redesigned from scratch based on a priori principles of reason. Instead, he advocated:

Respect for tradition, inherited institutions, and the wisdom accumulated over time (what he called “prejudice” in a positive sense).
Gradual and organic changes, based on concrete experience rather than theoretical perfection.
Healthy skepticism toward intellectuals who impose large abstract schemes, ignoring human nature and historical reality.

Burke warned that utopian projects tend to generate chaos and tyranny because they treat society as a machine to be rebuilt, rather than a living heritage to be cultivated with prudence.

III.3. Pragmatic and Realistic Reasoning

This approach focuses on what is viable and effective in practice, taking into account real limitations, dilemmas of choice, and actual human behavior. It prioritizes feasible improvements over the pursuit of an unattainable perfection. Utopianism, from this perspective, is seen as an illusion or as the direct opposite of political realism.

III.4. Gradual (or Incremental) Social Engineering

Karl Popper clearly distinguished between two types of social engineering. Utopian (or holistic) engineering seeks to reformulate the entire society from a comprehensive project or ideal. Gradual social engineering proposes small, targeted, testable, and preferably reversible changes. Its goal is to solve specific problems, learn from mistakes, and avoid the arrogance of a total reformulation of society. Popper viewed the utopian approach as intrinsically risky and prone to authoritarianism.

IV. The Treasury’s Green Book

In the United Kingdom, any public policy proposal that requires resources from the Treasury must go through the Green Book — the official manual for appraisal and evaluation of public policies (Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation). This document systematically incorporates concrete, pragmatic, gradual, and conservative (or prudent, if you prefer) reasoning. It stands directly opposed to utopian thinking by requiring the evaluation of options, real-world evidence, analysis of trade-offs, risk management, and learning from experience.

Let us look at its main elements:

IV.1. Concrete Reasoning

Emphasis on specific facts, measurable data, and robust evidence (research, previous evaluations, and pilot studies).
Monetization and quantification of the most relevant impacts.
SMART objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) and clearly defined Critical Success Factors (CSFs).
Sensitivity analysis and testing of assumptions.
Comparison of all options with the realistic reference scenario (Business as Usual — BAU).

IV.2. Pragmatic Reasoning

Focus on Value for Money (VfM) as the central criterion — a balanced judgment that considers both monetizable and non-monetizable impacts, distributive effects, and risks.
Explicit generation and filtering of multiple real options.
Effort proportional to the scale and complexity of the proposal.
Risk mitigation always assessed in relation to expected costs and benefits.

IV.3. Gradual (Incremental and Targeted) Reasoning

Application to specific policies, programs, and projects, and not to global reformulations of society.
Systematic inclusion of minimum options and scalable variants.
Planning of pilot projects, phased implementation, and continuous evaluation (ROAMEF cycle).
Explicit learning from similar previous interventions.
Presentation of costs and benefits in absolute terms, facilitating incremental comparisons.

IV.4. Conservative Reasoning

Mandatory adjustment for optimism bias: costs and deadlines are increased and benefits reduced based on historical evidence.
Strong reliance on previous evaluations, pilot studies, and evidence on “what works.”
Transparency about uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations.
The Business as Usual scenario as a legitimate starting point, and not a “blank slate.”
Detailed identification of risks (including tail risks and unintended consequences) with proportional contingency reserves.
No automatic progression to options that do not meet the Critical Success Factors.

V. General Alignment with Anti-Utopian Thinking

The Green Book systematically rejects utopian reasoning by:

Requiring the generation and comparison of multiple realistic options, instead of a single ideal solution.
Incorporating explicit corrections for human optimism bias.
Insisting on real-world evidence and subsequent evaluations.
Placing viable trade-offs at the center of the decision, instead of the pursuit of comprehensive perfection.
Treating change as an iterative, testable, and correctable process, rather than a revolutionary leap.

In short, the document institutionalizes the use of concrete data, pragmatic trade-offs, gradual testing, and prudent caution based on experience as standard practice of the British government. It represents an institutional materialization of the opposite of utopian thinking.

VI. Additional Considerations

Human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures. The world we build and inhabit is, as it could not be otherwise, equally imperfect and fallible. We can — and must — improve it. To do so, however, it is essential to learn from the successive failures of utopian projects throughout history.

It is not about prohibiting utopian thinking (it is the right of any person, including my friends, whom I value greatly). It is, rather, about not spending much effort on utopian projects, because it is not worth doing so, and about subjecting any project that intends to spend scarce resources — and eventually human lives — to the rigorous filter of reality before its implementation.

A Utopian Scale
We can imagine a simple scale, organized from the most idealized to the most realistic approach to solving problems:
At the top: the utopian proposal (ideal in theory, but unattainable in practice);
Next: the optimal solution (the best theoretically possible result, considering the known laws of humans and nature);
Then: good solutions or satisfactory solutions (among the various viable and feasible options);
At the base: insufficient and bad solutions.
In this context, it is worth recalling a maxim frequently repeated among engineers: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Professionals accustomed to dealing daily with the constraints of material reality rarely propose utopias. Sometimes they seek the optimal solution, but most of the time they are satisfied — and rightly so — with good solutions that actually work and can be implemented with the resources available.