There are various iterations of the question: Can humanity unite around a common interest or goal? Some of the most common examples I can think of include:

- World Peace.
- Defense against some common enemy, typically fictionalized as an alien invasion, robot war, or zombie apocalypse.
- In response to disease, such as plague.
- In response to some environmental or cosmic existential threat, such as a meteor, super volcano, etc.
- To meet the world population's needs around housing, food, water, education, etc.

It seems like many people consider it an impossibility for humanity to unite on any 1 thing (especially the above examples, given their complexity and the state of world affairs or some held narrative about human nature), while others retain some delusion, hope, or genuine belief in its possibility. As someone in the latter camp, and if I could humbly request taking an earnest shot at this problem, I feel that all of these complex branches can be abstracted from a base question of: Can humanity unite around 1 thing? My thought is that if we can't achieve uniting around 1 thing, no matter how simple or brief, then it would logically follow that we are unlikely to be able to unite around something much more complex and enduring like the above examples. As a result, two primary questions come to mind:

1. What can be conceived as the most simple, accessible, brief, neutral task that we can try to unite humanity around that also involves some kind of timeliness around confirming whether we succeeded or not?

and

2. Is it a testable hypothesis in the real world?

If we can construct something, and actually test it, then it wouldn't prove that humanity can unite around any of these complex branches, but it at least would move the needle from "Humanity is incapable of uniting around 1 thing" to "Humanity is at least capable of uniting around just 1 thing for a brief moment in time". That difference, small as it may initially seem, is profound to me. We would literally go down in human history, as nothing like it has been achieved before. Now, one challenge is that in order to unite around 1 thing, one must be made aware of the effort or invitation to unite to begin with. Given that we're attempting to achieve something on a global level, it would mean we'd need to have a very powerful signal to actually reach everyone around the globe. I'm not well-versed on physics and communication sciences, but as a layperson it seems like when there's a need to transmit a large signal over a large distance, to multiple receivers, and in a way that is fast, we often find ourselves utilizing waves. Radio waves, audio waves, visible light spectrum waves, and at times even vibrational or seismic waves. There are countless instances where we utilize wave technology to send a message that attempts to snap us out of our individual lives and into a sense of unity, such as air raid sirens, horns, emergency broadcast notifications, and semaphore systems more broadly and historically. A limitation of this though, is that those systems have limited reach, both via technological and accessibility limitations--you can't send a radio wave to a group of people who have no radio receiver and expect them to have gotten the message, for instance.

My proposed solution to this is metachronal waves, the kind of waves that result from individual components moving together to create a larger unity, typically seen in social insects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metachronal_rhythm



These metachronal waves communicate information just like any other wave, and we infer that it is a defensive mechanism in response to a perceived threat (ie. giving a warning), but also demonstrates to the observer that despite being comprised of individuals there is a clear sense of unity and subsequently a greater projected power. I've noticed that at least in American English vernacular, there seems to be a growing prominence about "Being on the same wavelength", which is to ask "Are we understanding each other? Are we united?". I think we can use the aforementioned wave technology to spread a message of wanting to "be on the same wavelength" via social media, word of mouth, journalism, etc. But in terms of doing something experimentally, I think it is the metachronal wave itself that we can use as a way of experimentally testing this hypothesis.

This is where we pivot to "Krazy George Henderson" as an example of humans coming together in an environment that is not dissimilar to the world stage, and achieving intentional, consensual unity via a metachronal wave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_(audience)

Imagine being George Henderson, and attempting to get thousands of people who don't know one another (or who George is), who are otherwise preoccupied with their own lives, relationships, and focus on the game before them--and complicate it by there being opposing teams/fans at various levels of actual or perceived rivalry--and trying to get them to be on board with doing something never seen or heard of before: The Wave. Most people, if first in line to be asked, would dismiss George and his idea for a litany of reasons. You're just there to watch the game, you don't want to do something in unison with the opposing team's fans, and even if you thought it was a cool idea you have no faith that anyone else would even do it--so, in so many ways, it's dead in the water. Part of what I think led to George Henderson getting the moniker "Krazy" added, is that this did not deter him, and there seems to be a keen ear he had that people often said that they may be on board, but only if there's confidence that everyone else is on board. Undeterred, this was finally achieved and recorded for the first time on October 15th, 1981 at an Oakland A's game and the sentiments and observations said by broadcaster Joe Garagiola as it happened are very profound, I think. It's only a 1 minute video, and I think it is very relevant to this idea:

https://youtu.be/_sqGxQoORYE

My argument is that The Wave is the best option we could have to test this hypothesis, given that it is accessible (no supplies needed; anyone who wants to join can), low-risk (it doesn't require anything other than a brief moment of your time), it is easy to explain and comprehend, and we can confirm whether it was successful or not in a very short time, relatively speaking. And, it is neutral from any religious or geopolitical bias. There is no hidden agenda, meaning, or information being sent via this wave other than an attempt to prove that humanity can unite around 1 thing.

We can use the aforementioned wave technology to communicate this goal, such as choosing a date where Earth's rotation along its axis is the window of time where we will attempt unifying via a global, human wave. It doesn't have to be the same literal movement as seen in the sporting world (getting up and flailing one's hands around), but that the underlying principle of being present in the moment, engaging in an intentional and consensual activity, pausing what we're doing, engaging in temporary non-violence, and feeling the interconnectedness that is only possible not be witnessing a metachronal wave, but by being part of one. We seem to have practice at doing this, with the most recent solar eclipse being an example where people would take ~4 1/2 minutes to do the above and for a temporary moment people felt united in the experience of experiencing a solar eclipse. So, could we spread a global message that (and this just a random example), on September 21st, 2024 we would like to attempt a global metachronal wave in which all people (who want, and can) would stop what they are doing, perhaps display a symbol of unity, and just look out at the rest of the world to see if other people are doing it too. In addition to leveraging the world's communication systems to plan this (engaging world leaders, social media, musicians, etc.), we could utilize technology to document whether the wave is successful or not. Given the size of Earth, relative to the size of a sport's colosseum, we would need this live coverage so that other people can see that the wave is happening and is on their way. Global timezones are parallels to sections in a sport arena.

If we could do this, we would be a generation of humans that would go down forever in history. Not as the generation that united around more complex goals, but that united for the first time. Wouldn't that be something?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 1 2024 01:11pm

Looks like one video per post, so here's the video of the first recorded wave in 1981:

this has been tested on a micro scale many many times, and the people generally dont band together.

people horde food in famines, people flee disasters because they cant find refuge, etc.

aliens im a bit less sure on, but i still see people protecting their own even if its understood we'll all die if we dont band together. sadly.

My guy, none of that is the focus of the thread though.

Time zones as parallels to colosseum seating sections:





This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 1 2024 02:02pm

Isn't it?



when it comes to that one item (the task of solving for short or long term population needs) we dont need a test it's happened all over the place.

no we could argue that people may not be willing to solve local problems, but would be more willing to solve a global crisis, but i disagree. generally the more local the action is required to more willing people are to pitch in and solve the issue.

if for example it was announced tomorrow that a famine had hit africa and many many millions were poised to starve to death people would be in favor of some blanket aid programs, but they wouldn't be growing food themselves to send over there. they may donate some old clothes in the short term but it would just be a week long headline then forgotten. the problem is too far away.

whereas a family in my town had their house burn down a few weeks ago, they lost everything. donations hit 5k$ quickly for lodging in a hotel, clothes were donated, and people pitched in and made them meals for a few weeks and delivered them.

but maybe i just misunderstand what your thread is about. heck, even helldivers 2 is a good test for the aliens dilemma, people seem to love pitching in to kill robots and aliens without a player vs player emphasis on the game. ive read a lot of reviews about how refreshing that aspect particularly is to many people who have for years been lost in the pvp meta of video game escapism. its nice to be nice, u just need to be forced to be nice most times.

The point I'm trying to make in this thread, is that those examples you're responding to are extremely complex and that before we get lost in the sauce about whether humanity can unite around those complex things (which you seem to be already doing), we might want to test if humanity can unite at all--even on one thing. Like, truly, experimentally, real-world, test it. Basically, people ask: Is humanity capable of uniting around X, Y, or Z (where these are complex world problems or anticipated existential threats)?

My response: Is humanity capable of uniting, period?

Well, the easiest way to test that would be to try and do a global wave. Just like it would be silly to ask whether the 47,000 people at the A's game can unite to solve world hunger, let's start with something much smaller and more feasible first. If we can't do the latter, there's no point in contemplating the former any further.

Edit: It seems like you're only responding to the top section of the OP, which is merely preamble.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 1 2024 02:24pm

humanity? who's that?

ahhh understood. well in my example people united to help a family. and quickly. so, maybe?

i used to think that people could unite around the idea that pedophilia was wrong and should be demonized. now there's areas of gray, some i understand some that disgust me.

many of the common morality both sides of the policial aisle and the center of the aisle once shared seemed to have degraded. i think this is the issue with uniting on almost anything. we used to ask "is it a good thing", now we ask "who will this help". polarization make unity almost impossible, we get like 1 or 2 feel good stories a year about people uniting for the common good. they're exceedingly rare.

hmm