Knowledge does not follow the scarcity rules that govern physical goods. If you share a tool, you still have the tool. If you teach a method, you still know it. This non-rival property means that the social return on sharing can exceed the private return of hoarding.
Imagine you have a formula that improves supply chains. In a scarcity economy, you would protect it. In a knowledge economy, you share it, because every adopter can test it in new contexts, discover edge cases, and send improvements back. The original formula becomes stronger, not weaker, through dissemination.
This property challenges the logic of traditional ownership. Physical property can be fenced because it is finite. Knowledge is more like light: one candle can light another without dimming. The more light, the more visible the landscape.
The non-depleting nature of knowledge creates a multiplier effect. If a single insight is shared with ten teams, those ten teams can generate ten improvements. The originator can then integrate the best improvements without having done the work alone. This is why open-source ecosystems often move faster than closed ones, even when individual contributors are unpaid.
The economic implication is that value migrates away from control and toward cultivation. The person or organization that creates the most usable, shareable knowledge becomes central to the network. Their influence grows because more people build on their work.
The shift is not simply moral; it is mathematical. When the marginal cost of sharing is near zero and the marginal benefit of sharing is high, secrecy becomes inefficient. The best strategy is to create a structure where contributions are tracked and rewarded, but not fenced off.
To make this sustainable, you need systems that translate impact into recognition and reward. This can be a mixture of monetary compensation, reputation, and access to shared resources. The point is to align incentives with the reality that knowledge multiplies.
In practice, this means publishing not just results but methods, contexts, and failures. It means treating insights as reusable building blocks. It also means accepting that your contribution will evolve in ways you cannot control. That is not a loss; it is the condition of growth.
The open knowledge economy depends on embracing this property of information. Once you accept that knowledge does not deplete, the argument for secrecy weakens. The argument for shared infrastructure strengthens. The challenge becomes building trust systems that make contribution safe, rewarding, and durable.