I wish wisdom was more accessible.
A lot of art is wisdom. Paintings, poems, films, books, music—these are all ways we exchange insight, experience, and understanding across time and between people. They are how we learn what it means to be human without having to live every life ourselves.
But that wisdom does not reach everyone.
Sometimes the barrier is a literal paywall. Sometimes it is time, energy, language, education, or sheer exhaustion. And while paywalls are the most obvious obstruction, they are not the root problem.
I do not have an issue with artists being paid. Artists should be paid. The problem is how (and how much) they are paid, and what their survival is made to depend on.
When access to basic human needs—food, shelter, healthcare, stability—depends on monetizing one’s creativity, insight, or inner life, something breaks. People are forced to sell the deepest parts of themselves just to exist. Wisdom becomes a product. Art becomes inventory. Expression becomes a transaction.
The result is not just limited access, but distorted delivery. Messages are shaped by algorithms, market pressure, and attention economics. What circulates is not always what matters most, but what survives best in a competitive environment.
Wisdom does not behave like a luxury good. It behaves like a commons. It gains value through circulation, not scarcity. Yet we have built systems that enclose it, meter it, and rent it back to people who often need it the most.
Even when wisdom is free, it can still be inaccessible. People overwhelmed by survival do not have spare attention to seek insight. Noise drowns out slowness. Speed replaces reflection. Access exists in theory, not in practice.
The real question is not whether wisdom should be free. It is whether survival should ever depend on withholding it.
Artists are not the ones limiting wisdom. Systems are. And the responsibility of meeting basic human needs should not fall on individual creators, nor on the exploitation of their passions and gifts.
A healthier world would not ask people to choose between sharing what they have learned and being able to live. It would ensure that life is supported first—so wisdom can move freely, without coercion.