Introduction: The Paradox of a Single Brain with Competing Hemispheres

The human experience at the dawn of the 21st century presents a profound and disorienting paradox. On one hand, humanity has never been more interconnected. A global nervous system of fiber optic cables and satellites links billions of minds in an instant, enabling unprecedented forms of collaboration and shared experience. Global crises, from pandemics to climate change, act as shared stressors, forcing us to confront a collective fate. Yet, in parallel with this unifying current, the world feels more fragmented than ever before. Social and political divisions deepen, public discourse deteriorates into hostile tribalism, and societies splinter into ideological echo chambers.

This report explores this central paradox by framing humanity as a single, nascent brain. It is a powerful, singular entity capable of incredible feats of collective intelligence, yet one struggling with a deep division between its rational, unifying impulses and its more primal, emotional circuits. The report will journey from the foundational theories of a collective mind to the scientific mechanisms that govern its behavior. It will examine moments of global unity born from crisis and contrast them with the dangers of digital tribalism. Finally, it will bridge this scientific and social analysis with ancient spiritual traditions, offering a profound perspective on our current state and a potential path toward a more cohesive and resilient future.

Section 1: The Blueprint of a Shared Mind: From Durkheim to Jung

To understand the concept of a global collective consciousness, it is essential to first establish its theoretical foundations in both sociology and psychology. While these fields approached the idea from different directions, their work reveals a complementary blueprint for a shared human mind, one that extends from our conscious, social agreements to the deepest, inherited layers of our psyche.

The Sociological Foundation: Durkheim’s “Conscience Collective”

The French sociologist Émile Durkheim first introduced the concept of conscience collective, or collective consciousness, in the late 19th century.1 He defined it as the shared beliefs, values, norms, and symbols that unite members of a society and shape their collective identity.1 For Durkheim, this collective consciousness was not merely an aggregation of individual thoughts but a distinct social force that provided a common framework for interpreting the world, guiding individuals’ behaviors, and fostering social cohesion and solidarity.1 It was the moral and cultural fabric that held society together, particularly as it evolved from simpler forms.

Durkheim distinguished between two forms of social solidarity, both rooted in this shared mental reality.3 In simpler, traditional societies, he posited the existence of

mechanical solidarity, in which people were self-sufficient but bound by close personal ties, traditions, and a shared set of beliefs, often religious in nature. The unity in these societies came from their homogeneity and the strong, coercive force of the collective consciousness that enforced conformity.3 As societies grew in population and complexity, however, a new form of unity emerged:

organic solidarity. This cohesion was based on the interdependence of individuals who specialized in a complex division of labor. In this modern form of society, the individual, rather than the collective, became “sacred,” and a shared moral framework, once provided by religion, was now centered on the rights and responsibilities of the individual.3

Durkheim, however, was acutely aware of the potential for disintegration during this transition. He worried that as the traditional bonds of family and religion weakened, and as individuals became more economically engaged with distant neighbors and traders, a breakdown of the collective consciousness could lead to a state of anomie—a lack of social norms and a sense of disconnection.3 The contemporary paradox of deep fragmentation within a globally interconnected world can be framed as this very disintegration. The forces of organic solidarity, driven by global interdependence, have not fully overcome the lingering tribalism and the remnants of mechanical solidarity. As a result, humanity is experiencing a form of global anomie, where the shared framework of norms and values is in crisis, leaving individuals adrift in a sea of conflicting beliefs and ideologies.

The Psychological Substructure: Jung’s “Collective Unconscious”

Complementing Durkheim’s sociological view, the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung introduced a deeper, psychological dimension to the collective mind. Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious is a profound layer of the human psyche that transcends personal experience.4 It is distinct from the personal unconscious, which contains an individual’s unique memories and suppressed thoughts, and is instead a universal, inherited structure shared by all of humanity.6 The collective unconscious contains instincts and universal primordial images and ideas, which Jung termed archetypes.6 These archetypes are not conscious ideas but inherited patterns of thought and behavior that provide a foundational blueprint for human experience.7

These archetypes surface in various forms throughout human life and culture. They can be seen in common dream themes, such as flying or being pursued, that appear across cultures and eras.5 They are the recurring characters in myths and legends, such as the Hero, the Mother, the Wise Old Man, or the Shadow.5 The universality of these narratives, which have sprung up independently in geographically distant societies, suggests a shared psychic origin.5 Jung also pointed to the ubiquity of symbols like the mandala and the serpent, and the similarity of rites and rituals across cultures—such as those surrounding life and death, marriage, and adulthood—as evidence of a shared pool of thought and experience.5

The two concepts, while distinct in their scope, are not mutually exclusive but interdependent. Durkheim’s collective consciousness captures the conscious, socially constructed agreements and realities that make societal cohesion possible.5 It is the realm of shared traditions, laws, and cultural norms. Jung’s collective unconscious, by contrast, is the unconscious, inherited bedrock from which these social realities emerge.5 Societal phenomena, such as mass movements or global protests, are not simply born of a shared sense of injustice or efficacy, as posited by sociologists, but also tap into and activate these deeper, universal archetypes of the Rebel, the Liberator, or the need for unity.5 This interplay between the social and the psychic offers a multi-layered understanding of human behavior, connecting the observable social world to the fundamental, inherited patterns of the human mind.

Section 2: Humanity as a Complex Adaptive System: The Scientific Mechanisms

Beyond the foundational theories of a collective mind, modern scientific research provides a framework for understanding how collective behavior emerges from individual action. These theories, drawing from group psychology and network analysis, reveal the complex dynamics of our shared system, illustrating that humanity is far more than the sum of its parts.

The Rise of Collective Intelligence: The “c-factor”

Decades of research have focused on defining and measuring individual intelligence with a statistical factor known as “g” or general intelligence. This “g-factor” predicts how well a person will perform on a wide range of tasks.9 In a groundbreaking study, researchers including Professor Anita Woolley applied this same analogy to groups, proposing the existence of a collective intelligence (CI) factor.9 They found that just as for individuals, a single, measurable factor—the “c-factor”—can predict a group’s ability to perform a wide variety of tasks.12

The findings of this research were surprising and hold profound implications for our understanding of collective problem-solving.13 The study concluded that a group’s c-factor is a much stronger predictor of its overall performance than the average, or even maximum, individual intelligence (IQ) of its members.12 In fact, the intelligence of the smartest member was not a significant predictor of group success.11 Instead, the most significant predictors of a high c-factor were factors related to social dynamics.12 The research identified three key drivers: a high average social sensitivity among group members (measured by the ability to infer what others are thinking and feeling), an equality in the distribution of conversational turn-taking, and a higher proportion of women in the group.9

These findings challenge the common belief that groups are only as smart as their smartest member and shift the focus from individual heroism to collaborative synergy.11 They provide a scientific basis for the argument that for a collective mind to function at a high level, it requires not just raw intellect but also empathy and inclusive communication.11 This suggests that solving the world’s most complex problems—from addressing climate change to curing diseases—is not simply a matter of finding a few geniuses, but rather of fostering an environment where a diverse collective can function as a single, highly intelligent unit.9

A Network of Humans and Non-Humans: Actor-Network Theory (ANT)

To fully comprehend the dynamics of our modern, digitally mediated collective consciousness, it is necessary to move beyond a purely human-centric view. Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory (ANT) provides a powerful lens for this analysis.15 ANT posits that everything in the social and natural world—humans, objects, ideas, and processes—exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships.15 It argues that all factors in a social situation are on the same level, challenging traditional approaches by defining non-human entities as “actants” with equal agency to humans.15 For example, in the context of a social network like Facebook, the theory holds that technological components such as computers and algorithms have the same agency and importance as the people and their communication that they support.16

Within this framework, non-human actants are not seen as passive tools but as active “mediators” that modify relationships between human actors, either fostering agreement or leading to conflict.15 This perspective is essential for understanding the paradox of our modern world. When applied to digital media, ANT enables a view of social media algorithms not as neutral systems, but as active participants in the formation of a collective consciousness. Their design, which is intended to maximize engagement and personalization, makes them agents that actively shape and mediate human relationships and their beliefs.17 This provides a profound framework for understanding digital fragmentation, as it relocates the root of the problem from individual behavior to the fundamental design of the network itself, which can, by its nature, amplify division.18

The Psychology of Collective Action

The scientific mechanisms that drive a collective mind are not just theoretical; they are a direct reflection of human psychology in action. Collective action is defined as any action taken by a group of people to enhance their condition and achieve a common objective.19 The psychology behind this phenomenon is complex, and an integrative trend in recent research has identified four core motivations that drive individuals to participate: perceived injustice, perceived efficacy, a strong sense of group identification, and emotions.19 A strong sense of injustice, often rooted in a feeling of relative deprivation, can fuel collective anger.19 This anger, combined with a belief in the group’s collective efficacy—the conviction that unified effort is a viable option for change—motivates mobilization.19 Strong group identification, particularly when group norms prescribe collective action, is also a powerful driver.20

The emergent, self-organizing nature of modern collective action can be understood through the lens of swarm intelligence.21 This concept describes the collective behavior of decentralized, self-organized systems, whether natural or artificial. Swarm intelligence systems consist of a population of simple agents that interact locally with one another and with their environment.21 While there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave, these simple local interactions lead to the emergence of complex, “intelligent” global behavior.21 This is a perfect metaphor for the modern protest movement, where local, simple actions can spontaneously give rise to a globally coherent and powerful collective force, without any top-down command and control.22

Section 3: A Glimpse of Unity: Collective Response in a Connected World

Despite the deep divisions that plague the modern world, there have been moments of profound unity when humanity has acted as a single, coherent body. These periods, often triggered by global crises, serve as powerful examples of our potential for collective action and collaborative problem-solving. They demonstrate the unifying current of our planetary brain and reveal how a shared crisis can catalyze a collective consciousness in action.

Case Study 1: The COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a stark example of a global shared crisis that simultaneously revealed both our capacity for collective intelligence and our vulnerability to fragmentation. The initial response demonstrated remarkable collaboration. Regional organizations and international bodies facilitated the sharing of crucial public health data, a practice that proved critical in understanding and containing the outbreak.23 This type of cross-country data sharing was a primary reason why diseases like SARS did not become established.23 Furthermore, collective action was evident in the joint procurement of essential medical supplies, such as vaccines and personal protective equipment (PPE).23 For example, the African Union successfully negotiated with pharmaceutical companies to obtain needed supplies for its member states, demonstrating the power of pooled purchasing and joint advocacy.23

At a time of global crisis, the world was forced to choose between a collective and a tribal response. While the scientific community and regional bodies demonstrated high collective intelligence and collaboration, many populist leaders chose a path of isolationism and xenophobia.24 They implemented absurd zero-sum behaviors, such as limiting the export of vital medical supplies, that ran counter to the logic of effective collective action.24 This paradox highlights that a shared global crisis acts as a powerful catalyst, forcing humanity to confront its collective fate and revealing the latent potential for both unity and division.

Case Study 2: The Global Climate Movement

The climate movement is a global social movement focused on pressuring governments and industries to address the causes and impacts of climate change.25 Its decentralized, grassroots nature, particularly in the youth-led Fridays for Future movement, serves as a textbook example of swarm intelligence in human society.26 What began with a single student, Greta Thunberg, striking outside the Swedish Parliament, quickly grew into a global phenomenon.26 The protests, which took place in thousands of locations across 150 countries, were not coordinated by a central authority but were the result of a simple, shared principle: skipping school on Fridays to protest.28

This is a prime example of swarm intelligence, where a simple, local interaction among individuals leads to a powerful and globally coherent outcome.21 The collective behavior of millions of people who were not in direct contact with one another—but who were united by a common concern and a shared sense of injustice—demonstrates a self-organizing collective consciousness in action.28 The movement’s ability to mobilize an estimated 4 million people worldwide on a single day in 2019 without a formal hierarchy or centralized command structure is a testament to the power of a decentralized collective mind.28

Case Study 3: The Black Lives Matter Movement

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement is a decentralized political and social movement that highlights racism, discrimination, and racial inequality.29 The movement’s structure, which operates as a loose confederation of groups without a formal hierarchy, is a stark departure from previous movements like the Civil Rights Movement.29 The hashtag

#BlackLivesMatter, originated by activists and friends Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Ayọ Tometi in 2013, became the unifying symbol for a vast, grassroots network of activists.29

The movement’s success demonstrates the profound power of a shared sense of injustice and identity to create a global collective consciousness.19 Following the death of George Floyd in 2020, an estimated 15 to 26 million people participated in BLM protests in the United States, making it one of the largest protest movements in the country’s history.29 The movement’s ability to mobilize millions and garner global recognition was a direct result of its decentralized, network-based organization, which allowed local chapters to operate autonomously while adhering to a shared set of principles.29

Section 4: The Fragmented Psyche: The Dangers of Digital Tribalism

While digital technology has been a primary enabler of modern collective action, it is also the most potent force driving fragmentation and division. The same networks that can unite millions in a single purpose also seem to be hardwired to amplify our most destructive impulses, leading to the rise of a counter-consciousness based on suspicion, distrust, and hostility.

The Echo Chamber as a Counter-Consciousness

A widely held belief is that social media algorithms create “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” that insulate users from dissenting views.17 Research supports the idea that user behavior, such as a preference for “homophily,” or seeking out opinions that align with one’s own, reinforces these enclaves.31 Studies of platforms like Parler and Twitter have shown that users’ views tend to shift toward popular opinion and that those with dissenting views often migrate away from the platform, contributing to the formation of ideologically stable, one-sided groups.31

However, the reality of fragmentation is more nuanced than the simple filter bubble hypothesis suggests. A comprehensive literature review by the Royal Society found that echo chambers are much less widespread than commonly assumed and that most people have relatively diverse media diets.32 The real danger is not that everyone is trapped in an echo chamber, but that the design of the platforms themselves—driven by the logic of engagement—weaponizes our innate human tribalism. Algorithms are designed to favor content that elicits strong emotions like anger and outrage, which are highly shareable and effective at driving engagement.33 This system amplifies the most extreme and polarized voices, enabling a small minority of “superspreaders” to inject divisive narratives into the collective conversation.33 This creates a collective descent into cynicism and hostility, where the entire network becomes less trusting of traditional institutions and objective truth.18 The fragmentation, therefore, is not primarily a physical or informational isolation but a psychic and emotional one, a collective crisis of trust in the shared social reality.

The Weaponization of Information and the Rise of Digital Tribalism

Applying Actor-Network Theory provides a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. The non-human actants—the algorithms, generative AI, and deepfakes—are not merely neutral tools but active agents that mediate and reshape social reality.17 Their “black box” nature means they secretly sort users into ideological “tribes” to sell targeted access, thereby undermining the democratic ideal of a shared public sphere.17 This business model exploits a fundamental human need for belonging and security, particularly for anxious publics.36

Digital tribalism offers a conceptual haven and a sense of togetherness that transcends physical connectedness.36 The sense of belonging it provides is a powerful emotional reward that can override the pursuit of objective truth, making people willing to share misinformation that reinforces their identity, even if they don’t fully believe it.33 This tribal identity can then be weaponized to target and eliminate alternative opinions, creating an environment of intense contestation that can erupt violently back into the material world.36 The dangers of fragmentation are therefore not just a matter of different opinions, but of a fundamental breakdown of the social fabric, orchestrated by a technological system that has become an active, and often hostile, participant in our collective life.

Section 5: Ancient Wisdom for a Modern Awakening

The scientific and social analyses of the collective mind, while insightful, can feel cold and clinical. To find a path forward, it is necessary to turn to ancient wisdom and philosophical traditions that have long understood the principles of interconnectedness, offering a deeper framework for understanding our current struggles and a moral compass for the future.

The Buddhist Principle of Interbeing

The Zen Buddhist concept of interbeing, proposed by Thich Nhat Hanh, is a profound philosophical and contemplative practice rooted in the idea that all elements of existence are interconnected and interdependent.37 It posits that there is no independent, separate self, and that everything is “empty of self-being” yet “full of everything”.38 This understanding is vividly illustrated by the fact that a person is composed of many elements beyond just themselves, such as their parents, ancestors, the water they drink, and the sunlight that nourishes their food.38

The relationship between all phenomena is famously illustrated by the metaphor of Indra’s Net.39 In this ancient image, a vast, infinitely-large net is hung over the palace of the Vedic deity Indra, with a multifaceted jewel at each vertex.39 The clarity of the jewels is such that each one is reflected in all of the others, and within each jewel is reflected the whole net itself.39 This symbolizes a universe of “perfect interfusion,” where each phenomenon contains and is contained by every other phenomenon, and nothing exists in isolation.40 The central danger of digital fragmentation is its creation of a dualistic, us-vs-them worldview. The concept of interbeing provides a direct antidote to this dualism. By recognizing that “others’ suffering is one’s own suffering” and that our happiness is inextricably linked to the well-being of the collective, this philosophy offers a path to transcend digital divisions and reconnect with a more fundamental, compassionate truth.38

Teilhard de Chardin’s Noosphere: A Vision of a Planetary Mind

The French Jesuit priest and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin presented a grand, evolutionary vision of a collective consciousness. He proposed the concept of the noosphere, or “the thinking envelope of the biosphere”.41 According to his theory, just as life (the biosphere) emerged from inanimate matter (the geosphere), human thought and reason are creating a new evolutionary layer on the planet.41 Teilhard argued that the noosphere is growing and evolving towards an even greater integration and unification, culminating in what he called the

Omega Point—an apex of thought and consciousness.41

This theory provides a hopeful lens through which to view our current struggles. The modern explosion of global communication and digital connectivity can be seen as the painful, chaotic birthing process of the noosphere’s nervous system, a period of “psychic centration” and “planetary envelopment”.42 From this perspective, the fragmentation, conflict, and chaos we experience today are not signs of imminent failure, but rather the necessary friction that arises from the “synthesis not merely of individuals but of entire zoological shoots”.42 This re-framing of our struggles as a messy evolutionary phase offers a grand, hopeful narrative for the future, suggesting that our collective journey is one of purposeful, albeit chaotic, progress toward a unified consciousness.

Indigenous Wisdom: The Circle of “All Our Relations”

Long before modern sociologists and philosophers theorized a collective mind, Indigenous worldviews held a fundamental understanding of interconnectedness. In many traditions, existence is seen as energy and constant motion, where all things—both animate and inanimate—are imbued with spirit and are in a state of mutual interrelationship.43 The core philosophy is one of wholeness and the group over the individual, as symbolized by the belief that a person’s worldview is rooted in the collective cultural code.43

This worldview is captured by the principle of “All Our Relations,” which recognizes the integral interconnections between all humans and the more-than-human world, including animals, plants, and the earth itself.44 The concept is embodied in metaphors such as the

“Sacred Hoop,” which represents an interconnected circle of people, and the “Red Road,” a metaphor for a shared, spiritual journey.46 This ancient wisdom provides a powerful validation of the article’s central argument. It demonstrates that the ideal of a collective consciousness is not a new, technological dream, but a fundamental, time-tested human ideal that can provide a moral compass for our current age. It reminds us that our responsibilities extend not just to our immediate tribe, but to the entire web of life, and that true social control comes not from coercion, but from a shared commitment to honesty, kindness, and harmony.43

Conclusion: Charting a Course Toward a Conscious Future

The paradox of a globally connected, yet deeply fragmented, world is a defining challenge of our time. It is a reflection of humanity’s dual capacity for both collective intelligence and destructive tribalism, a choice that is now amplified by our powerful digital tools. The evidence suggests that technology and global crises are not inherently good or bad; they are catalysts that reveal and accelerate the existing tensions within our collective mind. The internet, in this light, is our planetary nervous system, but it is currently afflicted by a kind of digital schizophrenia—simultaneously fostering a global community and reinforcing a negative, us-vs-them narrative.

The path forward requires a conscious effort to nurture the positive aspects of our collective consciousness. This begins with an understanding of its mechanisms, from the scientific basis of collective intelligence—which demonstrates that empathy and inclusive communication are more vital than individual intellect—to the sociological and psychological forces that govern collective action. It also demands a critical approach to technology, using theories like Actor-Network Theory to recognize that algorithms are not passive tools but active participants that can either promote unity or amplify fragmentation.

Ultimately, navigating this fragmented world and building a resilient future requires more than just scientific or technological solutions. It demands a spiritual and philosophical awakening. By reconnecting with ancient wisdom that understands the fundamental nature of interbeing—that our well-being is inextricably linked to the well-being of the whole—humanity can find a moral compass for the digital age. The future of humanity may not depend on a technological revolution, but on a conscious choice to unify our fragmented world and, in doing so, to take the next evolutionary step toward a truly collective, and compassionate, consciousness.

Works cited

1. Collective Consciousness | Encyclopedia MDPI, accessed September 5, 2025, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54900
2. encyclopedia.pub, accessed September 5, 2025, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54900#:~:text=Collective%20consciousness%20is%20a%20concept,and%20shape%20their%20collective%20identity.
3. 1.2F: Durkheim and Social Integration – Social Sci LibreTexts, accessed September 5, 2025, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_(Boundless)/01%3A_Sociology/1.02%3A_The_History_of_Sociology/1.2F%3A_Durkheim_and_Social_Integration
4. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious#:~:text=In%20psychology%2C%20the%20collective%20unconsciousness,from%20birth%20in%20all%20humans.
5. Understanding the Mystery of Collective Consciousness | Meridian University, accessed September 5, 2025, https://meridianuniversity.edu/content/understanding-the-mystery-of-collective-consciousness
6. Collective unconscious | Definition & Facts – Britannica, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious
7. Carl Jung’s Theory of Personality – Simply Psychology, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/carl-jung.html
8. Emile Durkheim and C. G. Jung: Structuring a Transpersonal Sociology of Religion – Digital Commons @ CIIS, accessed September 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol32/iss2/7/
9. Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups | PNAS, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005737118
10. Collective intelligence – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
11. What Makes One Team Smarter than Another? – OCEG, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.oceg.org/projectriskleader/what-makes-one-team-smarter-than-another/
12. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups, accessed September 5, 2025, https://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~mike/mikeg/papers/CollectiveIntelligence_annotated.pdf
13. C Factor: a collective IQ – Polytechnique Insights, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/braincamps/society/neuroscience-our-relationship-with-intelligence/c-factor-a-collective-iq/
14. Evidence from a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups, accessed September 5, 2025, https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/evidence-collective-intelligence-factor-performance-human-groups
15. Actor–network theory – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory
16. Latour’s Actor Network Theory – Simply Psychology, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/actor-network-theory.html
17. The Pros and Cons of Social Media Algorithms – Bipartisan Policy Center, accessed September 5, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/BPC_Tech-Algorithm-Tradeoffs_R01.pdf
18. Technology, tribalism, and truth – Brookings Institution, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/technology-tribalism-and-truth/
19. Collective action – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action
20. University of Groningen Four Core Social‐Psychological Motivations to Undertake Collective Action van Zomeren, Martijn, accessed September 5, 2025, https://research.rug.nl/files/168723506/spc3.12031.pdf
21. Swarm intelligence – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
22. Swarm Intelligence and Human Self-Organization | Madalina Sas | TEDxRutlish School, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAu_s6-j_4
23. Regional collective action to address Covid-19 and prepare for …, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/publication/regional-collective-action-to-address-covid-19-and-prepare-for-future-pandemics/
24. The Collective International Actions Needed to Tackle the Pandemic and its Lasting Global Consequences, accessed September 5, 2025, https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/collective_international_actions_needed.pdf
25. Climate movement – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_movement
26. How Greta started a global movement – Fridays for Future, accessed September 5, 2025, https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/who-we-are/
27. Fridays for Future – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridays_for_Future
28. September 2019 climate strikes – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_2019_climate_strikes
29. Black Lives Matter – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter
30. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter#:~:text=While%20there%20are%20specific%20organizations,the%20United%20States%20and%20Canada.
31. Rensselaer Researcher Finds That Users Seek Out Echo Chambers on Social Media | News, accessed September 5, 2025, https://news.rpi.edu/2024/05/09/rensselaer-researcher-finds-users-seek-out-echo-chambers-social-media
32. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarisation: a … – Royal Society, accessed September 5, 2025, https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/online-information-environment/oie-echo-chambers.pdf
33. How and why does misinformation spread? – American Psychological Association, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/how-why-misinformation-spreads
34. (Why) Is Misinformation a Problem? – PMC, accessed September 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623619/
35. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed September 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11804976/#:~:text=While%20these%20practices%20can%20enhance,of%20their%20being%20and%20interactions.
36. “10 Digital Tribalism and Ontological Insecurity: Manipulating Identities in the Information Environment” in “Deterrence in the 21st century”, accessed September 5, 2025, https://ucp.manifoldapp.org/read/deterrence-in-the-21st-century/section/593f8b2c-5c06-4dc8-8fea-4d7229a2155f
37. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbeing#:~:text=Interbeing%20is%20a%20philosophical%20concept,%2C%20mindfulness%2C%20and%20compassionate%20actions.
38. Interbeing – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbeing
39. Indra’s net – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net
40. Everything is Connected – Indra’s Net – Buddhism – PHABRIQ MEDIA, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.phabriqmedia.com/theory/indra-s-net
41. Noosphere – Wikipedia, accessed September 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
42. The Formation of the Noösphere – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin – organism.earth, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.organism.earth/library/document/formation-of-the-noosphere
43. Jagged Worldviews Colliding – Leroy Little Bear, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.law.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/documents/hewitt-leroy_little_bear_on_jagged_worldviews.pdf
44. Interconnectedness – (World Religions) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed September 5, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/hs-world-religions/interconnectedness
45. Strengthening Animal-Human Relationships as a Doorway to Indigenous Holistic Wellness – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed September 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6777485/
46. The Red Road – Spirit Horse Nation, accessed September 5, 2025, https://www.spirithorsenation.org/the-red-road
47. Collective Consciousness Meaning: How We’re All Connected, accessed September 5, 2025, https://soulseekerspath.com/collective-consciousness-spirituality/