The Nobel Prize should not be abolished because it serves as the ultimate global benchmark for human progress, drawing unprecedented attention, prestige, and crucial funding to groundbreaking scientific research, literature, and humanitarian efforts that might otherwise go unnoticed. While critics point to historical oversights, eurocentric bias, or controversial selections, these flaws highlight a need to modernize and broaden the award's selection process rather than dismantle an invaluable institution that unifies international scientific collaboration and inspires future generations of thinkers to solve humanity's greatest challenges.

Furthermore, dismantling the Nobel Prize would abolish a crucial global mechanism that holds world leaders and institutions accountable by spotlighting human rights and global peace initiatives on an unmatchable public stage. While replacing the award with direct, unstructured funding might sound ideal, direct funding lacks the massive cultural currency and international platform that the Nobel Prize uses to force critical scientific, literary, and social issues into mainstream public consciousness and policy discussions.

While shifting focus to raw funding sounds practical, it ignores how scientific progress actually secures capital: visibility drives investment. The Nobel Prize creates a global spotlight that actively attracts billions in public and private funding to scientific disciplines that would otherwise be overlooked by bureaucratic grant processes. Moreover, science has never been a solo endeavor, and the Nobel Prize explicitly recognizes team contributions by allowing awards to be shared among up to three individuals, encouraging multi-institutional collaboration rather than individual isolation. Replacing such a powerful symbol with decentralized funding would strip science of its primary cultural storytelling engine, reducing public engagement and ultimately shrinking the total pool of resources available for future research.

Framing recognition as a zero-sum game of "winners and losers" misinterprets how healthy competition works in science, art, and peacebuilding. Public honors don't create resentment; they establish visible benchmarks of excellence that elevate entire fields and inspire future generations to participate. Just as Olympic medals or international literary awards don't make every other athlete or writer a "loser," the Nobel Prize gives society a shared, celebrated standard of what human ingenuity can achieve, turning complex global contributions into stories that motivate millions to pursue progress.

That's all