Thank you, host:
Hello everyone.
Our point of view is that the sharing of human knowledge should not be supported.
Knowledge is the result of human beings’ understanding of the objective world in practice (including human beings themselves)
And *sharing means that others can obtain all human beings at no cost or at infinitesimal cost. acquired knowledge.
First of all, we must realize that the possibility of full sharing of human knowledge is very slim at this stage. Whether it is the administrative cost of deconstructing the existing knowledge system or the destructive impact on the knowledge economy relying on patent property rights, human society cannot bear it.
Our criterion for judging a thing is whether it can make society progress.
So will the sharing of human knowledge promote human society?
The answer is no.
First of all, it is a blow to human scientific research.
The exclusive sharing of knowledge makes patent laws and intellectual property rights become a piece of waste paper, which squeezes the knowledge dividend of scientific researchers and leads to people losing enthusiasm for scientific research.
Capital is willing to create gods, but it is never willing to create a scientist, especially a scientist whose inventions should be shared with the world. The rapid tilt of social resources has made the situation of scientific researchers not optimistic.
At the same time, the conversion rate of scientific researchers' own achievements is limited. The benefits derived from scientific research results are completely incomparable between inexperienced scientific researchers and operators with capital background who study market trends. The unequal income gap reduces human enthusiasm for scientific research.
Just like the person who invented milk tea could never imagine the commercial benefits brought by such an ordinary drink.
Dare you ask a society that waits for others to do scientific research, and then reap the benefits of being a fisherman?
How can we make progress?
If Nobel had not earned a large amount of money from the gunpowder patent at that time, presumably there would be no Nobel Prize for the rest of the world.
In short, the sharing of knowledge destroys the benefits of scientific research and hinders the progress of human scientific research.
Secondly, the sharing of knowledge increases the level of social harm.
***Shared knowledge has greatly weakened the advantages of technology companies, resulting in declining profits and fierce competition. This has led to market contraction, a new round of allocation of social resources, a new round of reshuffling of the power order, accompanied by huge social unrest, a surge in the unemployed population, and a surge in crime rates.
On this basis, the social losses caused by technological crimes that make it easier to obtain confidential knowledge will be countless.
Imagine that once the knowledge is fully disclosed, terrorists master the nuclear weapons formula, warlords and oligarchs possess cutting-edge technology, and hostile countries can easily crack the defense system. The country, the world, and the people will be like dangerous eggs, with swords hanging on their heads. And all this is just because we have shared knowledge about social stability.
[if !supportLists]Third, [endif] unlimited exposure to complex knowledge has a negative impact on the human mind.
The phenomenon of mixed knowledge in complex knowledge systems prevents people from absorbing correct knowledge, resulting in cognitive dislocation and blurring their own positioning.
Some knowledge that lacks in-depth insight, immature thinking, and is difficult to form a system is like correct nonsense. After reading it for a long time, your thinking will become superficial and you think you understand it, but in fact it means nothing.
At the same time, knowledge that is easy to obtain is easily not valued by others, and may instead dispel human beings' reverential attitude towards knowledge.
Finally, we would like to point out that in the current social background, the so-called monopoly has nothing to do with the sharing of knowledge. Monopoly is an inevitable stage in the development of an economic system. Even if the sharing of knowledge is required, However, the incompleteness of the sharing method allows the oligarchs to still achieve nominal sharing and actual monopoly by limiting the entropy value of information transmission.
Perhaps the opponent's opponent can propose remedial measures, but the rationality of the policy itself that requires remediation is questionable.
If knowledge is not protected, scientists are no different than prostitutes.
If knowledge is not restricted, then knowledge is no different from a scourge.
The above,
is our opinion