> Can you imagine a more important change than one in the relationship between intellectual curiosity and money? Semantics and edge conditions aside, no. I can

> Can you imagine a more important change than one in the relationship between intellectual curiosity and money? Semantics and edge conditions aside, no. I can't imagine a more important change; this is truly a concise and meaningful question. The world will be a little bit better if you ask your 3 closest peers this question. Including semantics, I believe our language must provide a thought framework to guide intellectual curiosity towards sustainability; ie, named classes of intellectual curiosity that create more opportunity for intellectual curiosity. Further, our language must meaningfully relate the concepts of intellectual curiosity, economic productivity and capital. For example, discussing the relationship between global economic productivity and the potential of a viral pandemic could frame problems in a way that promote intellectual inquiry, incentivized by capital, to preserve future economic productivity. Including edge conditions, I believe we at least need to constrain intellectual curiosity that would harm. Part of this goes back to semantics; ie, what is harm? But another component exists around cultural norms of transparency, regulation and authority.