[Tanny (OP)]

We typically think of knowledge as something we are in control of.  In the story we tell ourselves about knowledge, we are like the gods creating something out of nothing.   We learned this, we learned that, the story is all about us.  How very human.

Might it be more helpful and accurate to think of knowledge as an element of nature, or as a natural process which is unfolding on it's own, whether or not we are involved?  As example, it seems that intelligence and knowledge were evolving in to ever more developed forms long before our species came on the scene.  If we were to go extinct, that process would likely continue in some other vessel.

From this perspective, knowledge might be compared to say, water.  Some water is obviously essential, but too much water can be disastrous.   As humans we've spent our history learning how to channel this natural element towards where we need it, and diverting it away from where it would be destructive to our interests.   We've learned how to manage water.

Is this the kind of perspective we should now bring to our relationship with knowledge?  Should we be focused on management?

A simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge was very logical so long as knowledge was very limited.  As example, if we're out on the desert and it hasn't rained in six months, a "more is better" relationship with water makes perfect sense.  If we are living on the edge of starvation as humanity has often done, then a "more is better" relationship with food is again very logical.

But what happens when water, food or knowledge begin exploding in to our environment? 

We've seen what happens with food, a mass epidemic of over eating diseases.   So we've become more intelligent about food.  We no longer say "more is better"  when it comes to food, but are becoming more sophisticated about understanding what kinds of food, in what proportions, when and how etc.  We've grown, we've evolved, we've adapted in our relationship with food.  We've become managers.

Intelligent management is the opposite of simplistic global formulas like "more is better" or "less is better".   Management is a process of tailoring a resource to meet the needs of a particular situation.  Sometimes more is needed, sometimes less.  It's complicated, inconvenient, it's work, we have to think about it. 

If you can observe the scientific community as a whole and the larger culture that it springs from objectively, you will soon see that we are still stuck in a primitive "more is better" paradigm when it comes to our relationship with knowledge.  We've only barely begun to think seriously about management, and when those conversations dare to suggest less might be appropriate in some cases, the group consensus fights back in a doomed effort to cling to the wonderful lazy simplicity of "more is better". 

This forum, like most science discussions everywhere, is overwhelmingly about "more is better", that is, about the past.   Let's see if we can bring this outdated perspective in to the 21st century.  Let's see if we can learn how to become managers.  Let's see if we can adapt to the new environment being created by knowledge.

I'm sure some biologist on the forum would be happy to remind us what the price tag for failure to adapt typically is.