Hello, everyone.
Our view is that the enjoyment of human knowledge should not be supported.
Knowledge is the result of human's understanding of the objective world (including human itself) in practice.
And * * * enjoyment means that others can acquire all the knowledge acquired by human beings without spending money or at a very small price.
First of all, we must realize that at this stage, the possibility of enjoying human knowledge is very small. Both the administrative cost of deconstructing the existing knowledge system and the destructive impact on the knowledge economy relying on patent property rights are unbearable for human society.
The criterion for us to judge a thing is whether it can make society progress.
So will the enjoyment of human knowledge promote human society?
The answer is no.
The first is a blow to human scientific research.
The enjoyment of knowledge makes patent law and intellectual property rights a piece of waste paper, which squeezes the knowledge dividend of researchers and leads to people's loss of enthusiasm for scientific research.
Capital is willing to build a god, but never a scientist, especially a scientist whose invention will be shared by the whole world. The rapid inclination of social resources makes the situation of scientific researchers not optimistic.
At the same time, the transformation rate of scientific research personnel's own achievements is limited, and in the market direction, the income obtained by poor scientific research personnel and operators with capital background is completely incomparable. Unequal income gap makes people's enthusiasm for scientific research decline.
Just as the inventor of milk tea can never imagine the commercial benefits brought by such an ordinary beverage.
Dare to ask a society that waits for others to do scientific research before the fishermen can benefit.
How can we make progress?
If Nobel hadn't made a lot of money from gunpowder patents at that time, there wouldn't be a Nobel Prize.
In a word, the enjoyment of knowledge destroys the benefits of scientific research and hinders the progress of human scientific research.
Secondly, the enjoyment of knowledge makes the degree of social harm by going up one flight of stairs.
* * * Enjoying knowledge has greatly weakened the advantages of science and technology enterprises, resulting in a decline in profits and fierce competition. It leads to market contraction, a new round of distribution of social resources and a new round of reshuffle of power order, which is accompanied by huge social unrest and a surge in unemployment rate, thus a surge in crime rate.
On this basis, the social losses caused by technical crimes that are easier to obtain confidential knowledge will be incalculable.
Imagine that once the knowledge is fully announced, the terrorists master the formula of nuclear weapons, the warlords and oligarchs master the cutting-edge technology, the hostile countries can easily crack the defense system, and the country, the world and the people are at stake. And all this is only because we enjoy the knowledge about social stability.
[If! Third, [endif] unlimited access to complex knowledge has a negative impact on people's minds.
The phenomenon of different knowledge exists in the complex knowledge system, which makes people unable to absorb correct knowledge, resulting in cognitive dislocation and fuzzy self-positioning.
Some knowledge that lacks in-depth insight, is immature and difficult to form a system, just like correct nonsense. After reading it for a long time, you will think you understand, but it's nothing.
At the same time, easy-to-obtain knowledge is not cherished by people, but may dispel human reverence for knowledge.
Finally, we point out that the so-called monopoly has nothing to do with the enjoyment of knowledge under the current social background. Monopoly is an inevitable stage of economic system development. Even if they enjoy knowledge, the way of * * * enjoyment is not thorough, so that oligarchs can still enjoy knowledge nominally and actually by limiting the entropy value of information transmission.
Perhaps the opposing party can propose remedial measures, but the rationality of the policy that needs to be remedied itself is in doubt.
If knowledge is not protected, then scientists are no different from prostitutes.
If knowledge is not restricted, it will be like a scourge.
Above,
Is our point of view.