Sure add industrial power or labor power to my previous list. They along with the others are ways we effect the world and can contribute to progress. But I would dispute the fact that progress comes solely from those 2 sources. Plowing a field over and over every year may be very labor intensive but it's not progress.
And those libraries you mention were built not only with labor but also knowledge and material resources (equivalent to money). Science doesn't exist and advance solely because of our ideas but (with the exception of things such as mathematics) also requires labor and materials. It's all very circular and interconnected. Which is kind of my whole point, it takes labor and material (money in modern society) to advance science. IP rights help channel the money to those goals.
Humans are not so simple as that. We run the gamut from introvert to extrovert. And while on average we may tend to gather into groups of varying size, civilization and the macro scale concepts we're discussing have little to do with that. Left to their own devices humans tend to form, at best, tribe sized social groups. It's only when outside factors such as economies of scale, minimum populations required for some projects or technologies, and economics come into the picture that we begin gathering in larger groups. And those connection between members of those larger groups tend to be tenuous at best.
So given your supposition that we're all social creatures and it's in our nature to share everything then why aren't we? Because it's faulty logic that's why. Simply being social does not mean we do or even should share all information amongst each other. Knowledge is one of the facets of power with which we effect the world and so giving that knowledge to others empowers them. We don't always want that, sometimes for good reason and sometimes for bad.
