In 1516, Sir Thomas More described “Utopia” as “an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.”
So to answer the posed question, we may also have to answer if reaching perfection is possible. There’s a known spiritual answer to this mentioned by Wallace D. Wattles in The Science of Being Great. I’ll paraphrase here. He said everything is in a state of perfection, and because our consciousness is only human, we’re unable to see the greater good in evil. He believes it’s the viewpoint of the angels of Heaven to see everything as already in a state of perfection. Everything is the way it needs to be in order to bring about the greatest good at the end of all things. So if we use this answer to perfection, then perhaps it would be a bad thing to reach Utopia because then we’d be tampering with the final greatest good of all things.
That was the spiritual approach. A practical one might be a simple “no” answer. Everything is flawed and it’s literally impossible to reach perfection. For example, a surface that might seem perfectly smooth to us is actually bumpy and full of holes at an atomic level. We could then argue that isn’t the atom perfect? This would require a philosophical answer as I’m not even sure if it’s possible to have a flaw in an atom. Maybe a scientist could shed light on this in the comments?
Now back to our original question–is reaching Utopia possible?
Well, if it was, would we even really want it? Communism was supposed to bring about Utopia in the USSR, but as many of us don’t know this actually resulted in millions of people dying of starvation as jealous farmers ransacked the farms of all the productive farmers and the country’s production collapsed.
It’s easy to look at inequality and get mad at rich people, but the truth is these rich people used capitalism in a good way (most of the time) in order to benefit all of mankind. People like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are perfect example of this. If your wish is to ransack the rich, then you better be careful because you could very well ruin your country’s economy by removing the best producers.
Wallace D. Wattles talks about this. He mentions how two men with exactly the same plot of land can have different farming results because one will inevitably work harder than the other. Likewise, Jordan Peterson in his Maps of Meaning lectures talks about how hierarchical outcomes are inevitable in every situation. The reason why 3% of people own 95% of all money is not because of some diabolical scheme deployed by a secret global order. The reason is seen in all forms of nature, like in book selling where some authors will dominate and others will pick up the dredges. Another example is leaves falling naturally to the earth. As a pile accumulates, there will be more at the bottom and less at the top because this is the only form a pile can take in nature.
In every situation there will be a hierarchy, hence the ancient symbol of the pyramid with the eye of Horus at the top. Jordan Peterson calls the eye simply “attention,” and proves this by posing the question: “Is it really a flood’s fault for the destruction of a civilization, or the humans’ fault for not paying attention and neglecting to build sufficient breakwaters?”
In a Utopia where everything is perfect, would there be hierarchy? Not according to communists; however, other possible Utopian solutions to inequality could potentially regulate things to promote a less intense hierarchy. So to conclude with a satisfying answer, yes, it is possible to reach Utopia so long as we lower our standards of perfection and teach the truth of why inequality persists in nature, let alone human economics. If we continue to refuse the flaws of nature, then no, Utopia is impossible.