Review of: "Society's Impactful Decision-Making: Every Coin Has Two Sides, After All, Ranging from Utopia to Dystopia"

I agree with the author's assessment that utopian policies engender dystopian results.With time, I have come to think that one must get rid of the "good intentions-bad results" courtesy.Utopian projectors did not think well; they built on erroneous or malignant assumptions in the rst place.Many of these projects can be subsumed under what John Gray broadly calls political gnosticism, an attempt to x the ills of this world with the madness of ideology, religious or secular.Sometimes it is simply stupid or evil in a less grandiose sense-of the "banality of evil" that Hannah Arendt discussed, which appears when people lose the prudential power of reasoning and politico-ethical autonomy, becoming only cogs in the bureaucratic machine.As for the concrete cases the author analyses, I agree with his negative assessment of pandemic governance and its consequences.I am eager to underline the disproportionality that the author mentions: the thing itself-the disease-for most of the healthy population was not nearly as dangerous to warrant such a radical and long-lasting intervention into societies across the world.We have witnessed and lived through a rather perverse theatre of civic morality paired with pharmaceutical economy, discipline, and punishment.I applaud the resilience of human life to pathogens, both of biology and society, although I fear the consequences of the latter.Indeed, it was a bad "living experiment in governance, " and I am afraid that the danger of "the transformation of temporary necessity into permanent governance" still lurks, although it is important to say clearly it was not a necessity at all in the way it was presented and implemented in many countries.