That paragraph doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of the entire article. It may be as simple as an accidentally reversed word. If you replace 'worst place' with 'better place' it is consistent with the rest of the article.The only strange part of the text to me was this part:
While the majority of the article talks about the regrettable exclusivity of knowledge, this passage suggests knowledge is dangerous. Can anyone help interpret this a little better? Am I reading sarcasm incorrectly?But the real deal is that if it were any different, that is, in a positive sense where all shared in the world's resources like the United States, the world would be a worst place pollution wise, education wise, and morally. There is a bankrupt policy about knowledge that parades as if it is substantive and genuine.
If he actually intended to say 'worst', he may be referring (fairly inarticulately) to the tragedy of the commons, an economics theory that explains why commonly help property tends to deteriorate - no single person feels the need/responsibility to manage the land's resources for the long term.
Tragedy Of The Commons
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. This dilemma was first described in an influential article titled "The Tragedy of the Commons," written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.
Hardin's Commons Theory is frequently cited to support the notion of sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, and has had an effect on numerous current issues, including the debate over global warming.
Central to Hardin's article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd) of a hypothetical and simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the carrying capacity of the common is exceeded and it is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed to the detriment of all.