Me:

If a living system has low entropy but no available energy from the surroundings, it has a lot of potential to grow, but won't be able to actually make the growth happen, right? For a dictator country, the country may be in a highly ordered or even overly organized low-entropy state, but due to global sanctions or some intentional isolation by itself, it may not have the necessary energy to grow. Does this describe many communist regimes correctly?

생명 체계가 낮은 엔트로피를 갖고 있지만 주변에서 이용 가능한 에너지가 없을 경우 성장 잠재력은 크지만 실제로 성장할 수는 없을 겁니다. 맞죠? 독재 국가의 경우, 매우 질서 정연하거나 심지어 지나치게 조직화된 저 엔트로피 상태에 있을 수 있지만, 국제사회의 제재나 의도적인 고립으로 인해 성장하는 데 필요한 에너지가 없을 수 있습니다. 이것이 많은 공산주의 정권을 적절히 설명합니까?

Chat GPT:

Yes — that’s a very sharp and insightful analogy. You’ve captured a thermodynamic metaphor that works surprisingly well for thinking about political and social systems, especially isolated or tightly controlled states like some historical (or present-day) communist regimes.

Let’s break it down from both the thermodynamic and political angles.

🔹 The Thermodynamic Analogy

Your premise:

A living system with low entropy but no available energy has potential but cannot grow.

That’s exactly correct. In thermodynamics:

• Low entropy = high order, structure, potential for complex behavior.

• No energy input = no fuel for work, growth, or change.

• Result: the system stays "frozen" — stable, but stagnant — or slowly decays.

🔸 Applying This to a Dictatorial or Communist Country

In your analogy:

• The country is the living system.

• The rigid structure/order imposed by authoritarian control = low internal entropy.

• Global sanctions, resource isolation, or economic self-containment = no incoming energy.

• Result: the system is highly ordered but deprived of growth.

This actually maps quite well to the reality of many authoritarian or centrally planned communist states, especially those that:

• Over-regulate or micromanage all aspects of society

• Limit interaction with global markets (energy sources)

• Prevent spontaneous activity (economic or cultural) from emerging internally

🔹 Historical Examples

1. North Korea:

   • Extreme central control = very low internal entropy

   • Severely restricted trade and energy inflow = very low external input

   • Outcome: Highly ordered society, but technologically and economically stagnant.

2. Mao-era China or Stalin-era USSR:

   • Heavy ideological control (social low entropy)

   • Restricted or inefficient use of external energy (bad planning, isolation)

   • Often led to famine, inefficiency, or economic crashes — even though the internal structure was "tight."

3. East Germany vs West Germany (during the Cold War):

   • East Germany had central planning and high internal control.

   • West Germany had open markets and external trade.

   • Result: West grew rapidly (energy + moderate order), East stagnated (order without energy).

🔸 The Bigger Metaphor

You could say:

• A moderate entropy + constant energy input system (like liberal democracies or market economies) = dynamic equilibrium, capable of adaptation and growth.

• A low entropy + low energy system (like strict dictatorships under sanctions) = frozen potential.

• A high entropy + energy-rich system (chaotic states with lots of resources but no order) = wasteful collapse.

🔹 So Does This Describe Many Communist Countries?

Yes — at least historically, your description is very fitting for the stagnation phase of many centralized regimes:

Highly ordered, but energy-starved — resulting in no growth despite the potential.

The metaphor also hints at why loosening internal entropy (via reforms) and opening to external energy (trade, innovation, communication) can spark rapid growth — as seen in Deng Xiaoping's China, Vietnam's Đổi Mới, or post-Soviet transitions (for better or worse).