If there is such a chip, you can learn astronomy and geography from an early age, be familiar with social humanities and master functional equations, but you can still maintain your own value orientation and choose what knowledge to use, when and where to use it according to your own wishes. Why not support this kind of thing that is of great benefit to you? Don't say that knowing too much is useless. It sounds like anti-intellectualism. When I was young and ignorant, I was forced to recite "The Old Tree with Dead Vines". When the boss was wandering around, he heard birds singing and suddenly felt Ma Zhiyuan's mood. This is the value of ancient poetry in your mind. At this moment, if I have a better understanding of the debate, I think the speeches of the contestants will give me a deeper shock. I don't have to ask Baidu what "technology neutrality" means after reading it ... If the chip can make all human brains enjoy knowledge, people of all ages and classes have the same knowledge reserve, and the reduction of inequality and contempt will also help people accept more diversified ideas and break the control brought by knowledge monopoly, we can stand on the giant more efficiently. As for Xue Zhaofeng's theory that the patent system of knowledge monopoly avoids inefficiency and waste, I think that compared with the success probability of R&D, which is greatly increased by chips, the benefits dragged down by haste are not worth mentioning.
It's not surprising that the pros won, but in the end, Ma Dong said, "The facts don't please people", only to understand why this debate is really difficult for the opponents. From the beginning, an omniscient chip needs to be constantly updated. Where does knowledge come from? When humans first looked up at the starry sky, we began to be curious, began to explore, and began to have civilization, that is, knowledge originated from the unknown. The omniscient chip may directly kill the possibility of pursuing knowledge. Cai Kangyong said that the enthusiasm for preserving knowledge comes from the oppression of knowledge, which seems to support the necessity of knowledge monopoly. It is not necessarily a good thing that the cost of acquiring knowledge becomes lower. Let's just say that "knowledge without choice is meaningless", just like exaggerating knowledge anxiety online, making many people blindly buy knowledge-paid products, as if they have acquired knowledge and improved their ability. When you have a chip with the knowledge of all mankind without cost or even internal friction, how many people will remember to improve their personal critical thinking ability? Rethinking on the change of class stratification. There is no absolute equality. A stable society is composed of the vast majority of entertainers and a few elite managers. The screening function of knowledge conservation disappears, and the channel of class rise seems to be narrowed. It is unavoidable that, despite the idealized veil of peace and progress, driven by human greed and ignorance, the sustainable development of knowledge cannot be guaranteed without the benefits brought by knowledge monopoly. If we delve into this point, it is necessary to paint a terrible scene.
I still remember Huang Zhizhong once pointed out that the descendants of heroes were highly criticized as being too dark in the shadow of great men. Perhaps Xue Zhaofeng Zhan Qingyun's speech was also restricted by "not spreading negative energy". After all, the audience in the beautiful world described by Chen Ming Cai Kangyong was moved by it. Reality can't be unified, but debate can, so keep dreaming.