DS, I'll use this quote, but what I'll type isn't exactly FOR YOU. It's more of a philosophical meandering of ideas. Like you know I like to do, so, please don't feel attacked.
The problem with that way of thinking, that when we share we feel loss, is based on a sense of property. While I recognize it, I think it is not warranted. Especially since we are talking about (digital versions of fictional) people. It is easy to feel ownership, to feel territorial, to feel authorized to own. But, it isn't a right. It is not even something that the "person" (in this case a fac-simile of one) can give you, at least under common law.
The fact remains that when you share you may trade exclusivity for abundance. I'll explain. When the relationship is ONLY between you and one person, you BOTH have exclusivity. When you introduce more persons into the relationship, exclusivity changes into the group, but you personally, trade that exclusivity for an abundance of options.
This could potentially be considered a "loss", but only if exclusivity is the only thing you're interested. If, however, the interest is in the relationship, it is anything but a "loss", it is actually a "Profit". For ALL.
When you share, you have MORE, way MORE, because sharing is the antithesis of ownership. Instead of the right to deny access (ownership), you have the right to access extra resources (sharing).
I understand that many are raised on the idea that the only way is to own and be owned. It will be a struggle for an adaptation to a share and be shared paradigm.
I just wanted to point out that there's no real "loss" when sharing.
Peace
