Access is better than "ownership"
When someone patents a product or idea, the intention is obviously not to spread it around for the betterment of others. A primary goal is to make as much money as possible from creating something by slowly disseminating it through the monetary system. Phones, cars, and computers used to be owned exclusively by the wealthy because they were the only ones who could afford them. Now, thanks to increased production, they are cheaper and more readily available. It is so with all technology in this system. At first, when the technology is scarce, only those with money and access can afford it. When things are made in abundance, everyone has access and the man-made value or cost goes down because there is less need (supply and demand). The monetary system is like any other; it only benefits those who are successful at adapting to it. The problem with this system is that when someone acquires money, it means that someone else must lose it. Unfortunately this model is not only used for products, but also information. Thanks to the inherent competition created by controlled scarcity, what typically follows creation or discovery is monetization. Most of us do not even learn about an idea or product until others have figured out how to extract as much profit from it as possible. Applying ownership rights to an idea prevents others from using that idea without “permission”, which almost exclusively means money.
The question must then be asked; which is more important, useful information about advancements in water purification, agriculture, technology, and medicine made available to everyone, or a single person’s bank account? That depends on your personal relationship to the problem. If you learn something new and useful, like with property, you wish to protect it in order to get continued use out of it. The only “use” in keeping an idea from others is to make money. But what is the point of making money if science and technology can give everyone access to everything they need? Also, not every idea which is patented is necessarily the best, most honest idea if it too developed out of this system of scarcity. For example, planned obsolescence means a product is made to last for a limited amount of time before it wears out and you must buy a new one. The only purpose of this common practice is to force people to spend money more frequently on inferior products. Yet another example of money impeding quality and progress is the fact that oil companies own the patents for many alternative fuel technologies like batteries and solar power. This prevents us from advancing beyond inefficient and harmful fossil fuels, simply because change would hurt their profits.
It is the same business with medical patents. Certain drugs are developed exclusively to treat symptoms of problems rather than the cause. Ritalin, Prozac, and Viagra are prescribed flagrantly without much attempt to figure out the environmental causes of ADHD, depression, or flaccidity. If you discovered a treatment for cancer, in a monetary system you wouldn’t be able to just give it away to those who need it, because it costs money to produce medicine. But the treatment exists, so money also prevents good people from helping others. This means that the monetary system itself is responsible for much suffering and death. Now imagine someone who is very successful in this system. If they own the rights to a drug, then discover a plant that cures cancer altogether, they wouldn’t have as much incentive to sell a permanent fix to the problem when there is so much more profit to be made from constantly selling the treatment.
We cannot judge them too harshly, because we are all trained to think that money is the solution to our problems. The actual causes of many diseases and social disorders are known right now; but if you keep that from people and spread misinformation and theories, it will take us much longer to solve the puzzle. Money directly prevents us from learning valuable knowledge. When ideas and products are kept from people, it doesn’t stop those people from needing them. It simply means that someone else is trying to profit from that need. Is that the best method possible? Health problems eventually affect every single person on the planet. Now imagine if we removed money from the system. There would be no more incentive to profit from illness or to keep the best treatments from people. We would all benefit from this.
When someone patents a product or idea, the intention is obviously not to spread it around for the betterment of others. A primary goal is to make as much money as possible from creating something by slowly disseminating it through the monetary system. Phones, cars, and computers used to be owned exclusively by the wealthy because they were the only ones who could afford them. Now, thanks to increased production, they are cheaper and more readily available. It is so with all technology in this system. At first, when the technology is scarce, only those with money and access can afford it. When things are made in abundance, everyone has access and the man-made value or cost goes down because there is less need (supply and demand). The monetary system is like any other; it only benefits those who are successful at adapting to it. The problem with this system is that when someone acquires money, it means that someone else must lose it. Unfortunately this model is not only used for products, but also information. Thanks to the inherent competition created by controlled scarcity, what typically follows creation or discovery is monetization. Most of us do not even learn about an idea or product until others have figured out how to extract as much profit from it as possible. Applying ownership rights to an idea prevents others from using that idea without “permission”, which almost exclusively means money.
The question must then be asked; which is more important, useful information about advancements in water purification, agriculture, technology, and medicine made available to everyone, or a single person’s bank account? That depends on your personal relationship to the problem. If you learn something new and useful, like with property, you wish to protect it in order to get continued use out of it. The only “use” in keeping an idea from others is to make money. But what is the point of making money if science and technology can give everyone access to everything they need? Also, not every idea which is patented is necessarily the best, most honest idea if it too developed out of this system of scarcity. For example, planned obsolescence means a product is made to last for a limited amount of time before it wears out and you must buy a new one. The only purpose of this common practice is to force people to spend money more frequently on inferior products. Yet another example of money impeding quality and progress is the fact that oil companies own the patents for many alternative fuel technologies like batteries and solar power. This prevents us from advancing beyond inefficient and harmful fossil fuels, simply because change would hurt their profits.
It is the same business with medical patents. Certain drugs are developed exclusively to treat symptoms of problems rather than the cause. Ritalin, Prozac, and Viagra are prescribed flagrantly without much attempt to figure out the environmental causes of ADHD, depression, or flaccidity. If you discovered a treatment for cancer, in a monetary system you wouldn’t be able to just give it away to those who need it, because it costs money to produce medicine. But the treatment exists, so money also prevents good people from helping others. This means that the monetary system itself is responsible for much suffering and death. Now imagine someone who is very successful in this system. If they own the rights to a drug, then discover a plant that cures cancer altogether, they wouldn’t have as much incentive to sell a permanent fix to the problem when there is so much more profit to be made from constantly selling the treatment.
We cannot judge them too harshly, because we are all trained to think that money is the solution to our problems. The actual causes of many diseases and social disorders are known right now; but if you keep that from people and spread misinformation and theories, it will take us much longer to solve the puzzle. Money directly prevents us from learning valuable knowledge. When ideas and products are kept from people, it doesn’t stop those people from needing them. It simply means that someone else is trying to profit from that need. Is that the best method possible? Health problems eventually affect every single person on the planet. Now imagine if we removed money from the system. There would be no more incentive to profit from illness or to keep the best treatments from people. We would all benefit from this.
No comments:
Post a Comment