Towards A Convention on Knowledge

[Cathryn]

Whilst perusing this site -http://www.i-sis.org.uk/conventiononknowledge.php I came across an interesting 'Plan' for a ‘Convention on Knowledge'

The following is an extract and they are asking for support and input from anyone, I find their ethos appealing, but am I missing something, it sounds too good to be true.

Proposed Elements for A ‘Convention on Knowledge’

Knowledge’ is to be understood in the most general sense that includes science and all other disciplines in the west, as well as holistic, indigenous knowledge of diverse communities around the world.

1. Knowledge must not be used for destructive, oppressive or aggressive military ends. Scientists must take moral responsibility for their own research, to desist from research that is harmful or that serves destructive, oppressive or aggressive military ends.
2. Knowledge belongs to the community and cannot be privately owned or controlled. We reject all privatisation of knowledge, and enclosure of databases by private companies. We reject patents on living organisms and their parts, and patents based on plagiarism of knowledge belonging to indigenous communities. We reject monopolistic patents on essential medicines and other knowledge that generate excessive profits for corporations.
3. Knowledge is diverse, inclusive and pluralistic; and no one knowledge system should predominate over the others so long as they satisfy the other elements in this convention. Indigenous knowledge systems must be protected and allowed to thrive. Cross-fertilisations and partnerships between different knowledge systems and practices should be promoted towards improving sustainability and equity.
4. Knowledge should enable us to live sustainably with nature. It should be ecologically accountable. Its research and practice are fully in line with the precautionary principle.
5. Knowledge should be open and accessible to all. It must be truthful and reliable. Disagreements must be openly debated in terms that all people can understand. People must be consulted and participate in making decisions at every stage, from research and development to the introduction of new technologies into the community.
6. Knowledge should serve public interest, not the agenda of corporations. It must be independent of commercial interests and of government control. Public funds should be allocated primarily to research that benefits society as a whole.
7. Knowledge should make the world equitable and life-enhancing for all its inhabitants. It should address people’s emotional and spiritual as well as physical needs. It gives meaning and value to their way of life, and in that sense is profoundly holistic. Its first aim is to do no harm, to human beings and to other species. It must respect basic human rights and dignity.

 

[Buddy]

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea, especially since the writer of this draft uses all the appropriate buzz words, but I dunno.

Somehow I get the impression of another Granfalloon1 where the main idea is to create administration positions for low-effort livelihoods while others do, or do not, accomplish much of anything, especially considering that any "understandings" will not be legal and binding on anyone anywhere.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just always cautious and a bit cynical when people start calling for others to do work they could do themselves, considering that those people have self-interest investments in their ideas (kudos and Nobel Peace Prizes piling up?). I think the most likely scenario will be that their efforts simply siphon more tax dollars from a gullible public.

Here's what they mean by "convention" and "knowledge":

Its first aim is to do no harm...

That's one of the principal precepts of medical ethics2, isn't it? Humanity really 'benefits' from that, huh? Well, it's all just a matter of 'interpretation' for some folks, I suppose.




ref:
--------------------------------------
1
Definitions of granfalloon:

* A granfalloon, in the fictional religion of Bokononism (created by Kurt Vonnegut in his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle), is defined as a "false karass." That is, it is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless.
_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon

* A group of two or more people who imagine or are manipulated to believe they share a connection based on some circumstance of little or no real significance
_en.wiktionary.org/wiki/granfalloon
--------------------------------------
2

Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm". The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.

Nonmaleficence, which derives from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of medical ethics that all medical students are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit. Since at least 1860, the phrase has been for physicians a hallowed expression of hope, intention, humility, and recognition that human acts with good intentions may have unwanted consequences.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere