For a while I have worried about how deeply market logic has seeped into every corner of modern life. We measure success in quarterly earnings and page views, not in wisdom gained or problems solved. The same pressure that turns art into disposable content has begun to turn science into a private club where access and recognition are rationed out by cost, prestige, and branding.

Capitalism’s influence is not new, but its present scale is unprecedented. Corporate funding steers research agendas toward fast-moving technologies that promise immediate returns. Universities fight for patents and spin-offs. Journals hide publicly funded findings behind paywalls that keep out anyone without an institutional badge. Even the informal conversations that once drove inquiry now live on platforms that monetize every click. Curiosity still exists, yet it is forced to pay rent in a marketplace of hype.

The article below captures this tension with unusual clarity. It challenges the idea that science is an open, self-correcting commons and argues that a small priesthood now controls who speaks, who is heard, and who gets the tools to test new ideas. I found it an important reminder that knowledge can be enclosed just as land can be fenced off.

If we care about the long-term health of science, we need to imagine structures that reward truth over profit and collaboration over gatekeeping.

For many, aliens only exist in the realm of science fiction. But regardless of whether aliens exist or not, the potential existence of extraterrestrial species throws into question our entire metaphysical framework, which has long gone unchallenged. In particular, we would need to rethink our understanding of language, which currently determines how we experience our world.

But what if there were other languages out there that better captured reality? For theoretical philosopher Matti Eklund, these are the questions philosophy needs to be asking.

“Investigating what alien languages there can be is a natural and fruitful way to investigate different ways for the world to be,” Eklund argues.