Pearce makes the inquiry, “is this model even necessary?” It emerged by accident of being favored by natural selection. Could it be subjected to design intervention? To this end, he proposes an ambitious global technology project, which takes as it’s objective the redesigning of the vertebrate genome and the redesigning of the global ecosystem. One of the peripheral features of this model that I find so compelling is that it offers a prescription for how to invest the energies of the applied sciences. It submits a broad objective for human creative endeavor to be working towards. Right now that endeavor is dominated by an ideologically driven fantasy that market forces cause scientific innovation to excel.
I don’t submit these models to the exclusion of more obviously political strategies for intentional living, but I suspect that any model that does not include them will be incomplete. These strategies speak directly to the underlying conditions that propel the idea of Utopia. That injustices and the suppression of our potential are built into the existing system. Normally that system is treated as a political entity, but the fact that it could be a much more fundamental system (a natural or biological one) should not dissuade inquiry into an alternative model. Utopian thought should be about a strategy to achieve the best of all possible worlds.