It is interesting to note how as Mankind's database of knowledge increases exponentially over the recent years and as it becomes more widely and easily available, these very excesses seems to actually go beyond the conventional economic wisdom of 'having value in scarcity'. It seems that as more knowledge is gathered, people in general are actually valuing these knowledge even more. But is it really so? I mean if one were to go with the non-conventional idea that knowledge gets more valuable with increasing quantity, would it not then make millionaires or billionaires out of those intellectuals who seems to present themselves with a panoply of knowledge content?
In my humble opinion and analysis of things, it is NOT really the quantity of knowledge that would be THAT deciding commercial valuation factor, but more so it is in the way of how one weaves the various content knowledge and produces a relevant and viable 'new' and 'modified' knowledge content that matters! It is how well one can seamlessly and innovatively present a relevant, refreshing and perhaps revolutionary knowledge content that would decide whether one would get or be paid for it, or NOT. But seriously, with the strong movement of the open source software (OSS) and similar social virtual structures in place, wouldn't it then just be a matter of time before one can see the evolution of knowledge in itself becoming a non-commercial commodity, and perhaps even adopting a similar model like the developments of the Web 2.0 tools. Knowledge in itself would be free, but if this is so, then what would be the primary motivation of increasing Man's databank of knowledge then? Hmmm...perhaps the Utopian ideals propounded in the Star Trek series, where Man stops working just for money alone, is indeed a reality, though still a distant one perhaps?
No comments:
Post a Comment