Open Source Technology: The Key to Fairness and Transparency

In today's world, the development of emerging technologies has raised many concerns. Some people worry that cutting-edge technologies may exacerbate social inequality, as the wealthy and powerful have greater access to these technologies. For example, life extension technologies may only be affordable for citizens of wealthy countries, thereby widening the lifespan gap between the rich and the poor. Human genetic enhancement technologies may also be monopolized by a few, creating a privileged class.

In addition to the inequality in access to technology, there is another form of technological abuse: manufacturers exert control over users through data collection, hiding information, and other means. This is essentially a different issue from the inequality in access to technology.

In the face of these concerns, Open Source technology offers a frequently underestimated third path. Open Source not only improves the equality of technology access but also enhances the verifiability of technology, eliminating vendor lock-in. Taking longevity extension technology as an example, if it is Open Source, anyone can use it and provide it cheaply to others. For gene enhancement technology, Open Source can significantly narrow the gap in access to content between different groups.

Open Source also helps to establish a more effective and honest security testing ecosystem. For products like smart cars, Open Source enables users to verify that manufacturers are not monitoring them and that they do not have to rely on manufacturers to continue using their vehicles.

Of course, Open Source technology also faces some criticism, mainly concerning the potential for misuse. For example, if nuclear technology is accessible to everyone, it would obviously lead to catastrophic consequences. Some argue that trusted "gatekeepers" should control the technology, but the question is whether there are genuinely trusted gatekeepers in the modern world. History shows that even governments can misuse technology, such as the Soviet Union's biological weapons program.

Therefore, if a technological risk is too high to develop without strict control, the best option may be to not develop it at all. If there are concerns that a technology might create unfair power dynamics, then developing it in an Open Source manner may actually be a better solution.

It needs to be clarified that Open Source does not mean complete laissez-faire. For example, geoengineering technology can be researched using Open Source and open science methods, but that does not mean anyone can arbitrarily change the Earth's environment. Laws and international diplomacy can still play a role in ensuring that the application of technology is properly regulated.

The core value of Open Source lies in ensuring the democratization of technology, allowing more countries and groups to access and use technology, while also increasing the accessibility of information, enabling people to better assess the effectiveness and safety of technology. From this perspective, Open Source may represent the best balance in promoting technological advancement while minimizing the risks of wealth and power concentration.

In many cases, the immense value of rapid technological development outweighs these concerns. However, in certain areas, it is crucial to proceed with caution. Choosing Open Source as a means of technological advancement not only focuses on the speed of progress but also on the approach to progress, which can be an underestimated yet highly potential method that helps drive technology in a better direction.