Embracing our Connectedness
Will we choose a path to cooperation or will it choose us?
By Cyndi Coon and Shannon Mullen O’Keefe
Competition is deeply embedded in our capitalist way of thinking. We strongly reject collusion — secret cooperation — so we can protect the integrity of our market systems.
So we can compete fairly.
But we know intuitively that ethical cooperation matters a great deal. There is a public square, sometimes we need to get along and work together for the good of the whole.
We, the co-authors of this essay, like to think and write about what’s possible. We use our writing to explore what might be and in this way, we have a little freedom to experiment with ideas that might seem a little out there.
But then again, sometimes the little out there things become our reality (space flight, anyone?)
Here is what we’ve been thinking about: With some of the global-scale problems we hear about every day (no need to repeat them here for that reason) we’re getting the drift that as a species; it may be time for us to step it up a level.
What if cooperation, collaboration, a more unified spirit, is the next level for us?
This article isn’t about challenging our market systems. What we’re more interested in for the sake of exploration is — will we humans — choose the “cooperative” future?
Or will it choose us?
Here is the rather radical thought we’d like to explore: What if the next level of our human development might mean that a new radical cooperation is just about to emerge? And what if it’s not us leaning into the idea? It’s more that our biology and technical advances rather, invite us in that direction?
What if we become — more or less — connected to each other?
Via our brainwaves…. that is.
Whoa.
Many of us may need to pause reading to take a deep breath right there.
Breathe in… breathe out…
The thing is that the brainwave readers are happening. Early phase…fine. Elon Musk announced the latest release just last week. (We’d already been writing this article and didn’t expect that announcement. ) But early phases develop into future, more sophisticated phases. Remember, some predict that soon we’ll decipher whale speech via AI? In this latest announcement indeed, Musk talks about how we’ll soon communicate with our devices via our brainwaves.
Will brain implants reveal an already more connected us?
Versions of the idea that even though we have separate bodies, we might be connected to each other have been out there for a long time. Carl Jung proposed the idea of the collective unconscious, for example. Instincts, archetypes, primal symbols …all existing in our subconscious mind — a subconscious mind that we all activate individually, but that all the same is out there as one thing … one cohesive thing.
It isn’t only Carl Jung that has a deeper form of connectedness in his mind, though: his idea was just one manifestation of a concept like this.
Others exist, too. The Gaia hypothesis is surfacing again. This is the idea that the earth may be more alive than we often give it credit for — that it may actually be a cohesive alive unit — “a giant living creature.” Indigenous cultures are credited for ideas like this. Consider the Kogi people and the golden thread.
Though each of these theories is a radically different way of looking at connectedness — they all hint that there is a connectedness around us — and maybe even within us.
Should we take this connectedness more seriously?
What we’d like to talk about in this article is that perhaps this idea is something that we ought to surface and take more seriously.
What if we are at a pivot point in our development? What if it’s time for us to embrace a new way of thinking about ourselves?
This is because our technologies are opening new doors and may influence our way of being together.
To get really clear…. what if we’re not that far off really…from seeing our thoughts mesh?
And if technology like brain implants enables that to happen…might that not be such a bad thing? What if it is an opportunity to learn how we might see ourselves as a more cooperative —connected unit?
What if now is the time that our future ancestors will look back to and remember when we were —separated from each other?
Let’s think about this critically, starting with what might be our first step in this new direction — neural implants.
A critical look at neural implants
The neurotechnologies (Exhibit 1) now range from Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) to Neural Mesh Networks, Smart Neuroprosthetics, Emotion Recognition Systems and Augmented Reality (AR) with Neurofeedback.
The Brain-Computer Interfaces developed by companies such as Neuralink “aim to enable direct communication between human brains and computers,” and “in a micro-community setting, this could mean sharing thoughts or emotions directly with others, bypassing conventional spoken or written language.”
We think such neural implants warrant critical examination and that now is the time to think about the effect they may have on our lives.
Exhibit 1: Types of Neurotechnology
With Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs), think neural lace integrated with brain tissue instead of bulky hardware. BCIs, like those from Neuralink, could allow direct sharing of thoughts and emotions, bypassing traditional language. Imagine community meetings where members ‘think’ their input.
The concept of Neural Mesh Networks is where individual brains might link up to form a live, organic network. This communal brainwave-powered Wi-Fi could enable shared experiences and collective problem-solving without external devices.
The devices, known as Smart Neuroprosthetics, could enhance communication by providing sensory feedback to the brain, allowing new ways to experience each other’s presence. Think of it like feeling the music someone else is hearing.
We are also curious about Emotion Recognition Systems that could read emotional states, enhancing empathy and understanding within a community by providing real-time feedback on members’ feelings.
Last, there is Augmented Reality (AR) with Neurofeedback possibilities.
The idea of combining AR with real-time brain activity monitoring could let users see visual representations of others’ thoughts or moods, fostering deeper social interactions and understanding of community dynamics.
So, the idea for thinking out loud — together — and collectively is already present in the early stage technologies that will become the later stages of these technologies.
The reasons engineers and brain surgeons and technologists are creating such technology is to tackle human challenges. Someone unable to speak in words —may speak through their thoughts in the future.
But it isn’t such a far leap to imagine that such technology might represent other possibilities to extend our way of being (and thinking) together.
That they might invite new sensory ways to experience each other’s company, like feeling the music someone else is hearing—or understanding within a community being enhanced by providing real-time feedback about members’ feelings and well-being. Or what about “Combining AR glasses with real-time brain activity monitoring, enabling users to see visual representations of others’ thought patterns or moods?”
By now, you get the drift.
Assuming these technologies take root, we’ll be drifting ….. together.
Our minds and senses, even.
Our moods on view for others to see — in a visual representation; not only to feel (as people probably already do.)
The micro-us–as an individual first meshing with a micro-community and then what stops us from a macro-community mesh?
The collective connectedness — the ultimate cooperation …forming.
Community in an Age of Brain Implants
Could this be a good thing?
If someone were to see this as a good thing, they might say the core argument in favor might be strengthening the whole by subsuming individual identities through interconnectedness into a larger, technologically mediated collective.
According to Aristotle: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”
The extreme implementation of a technology like this could mean that we radically accept the individual contribution into one collected whole that is “greater than the sum of its parts.”
We see and feel and think — as a unit together.
Wait. Wouldn’t a full on move in this direction pose a genuine risk to our individual identity and the ultimate loss of personal agency?
Yep.
Yet, the rapid pace of technological advancement leads to these questions. What might brain implants and associated technology’s impact on individual and societal identity be?
Could authentic interactions in the connected spaces lead to potential harmful consequences too big to opt in or if we reject such technology, are we on the wrong side of the future?
Or, is it just time to cooperate?
We need community.
The desire for genuine, meaningful connections with chosen communities for collaborative work, learning, and life-building is a driving force behind the push towards a more interconnected world. By leaning all into a future in which we embrace neural implants and like technology —we embrace the possible emergence of a collective conscience that could mean that individuals can weave their relationships, knowledge, and sense of self into a tapestry of shared experiences and collective wisdom.
This integration has the potential to strengthen individual identities within the context of a vibrant, interconnected community.
What if we offered up all of ourselves all the time? The good, the bad, the ugly…. All out there for the view and use of everyone all the time?
(Article for another day: Would there be any “ugly” to view in a world of such radical transparency?)
In contrast, rejecting such technological advancements or failure to join a collective conscience like this might pose a separate and a unique significant threat.
The type we already face today to a degree.
In a society where face-to-face interactions are increasingly scarce, the risk of profound loneliness and disconnection becomes a further pressing concern. The very essence of human identity, rooted in the need for community and shared experiences, is at risk of being eroded into a world that prioritizes convenience over genuine connection.
And a market system that values competition as its energy source.
Conclusion (for now)
There is no conclusion for now.
For now, we’re speculating about a future that could emerge.
But the questions posed throughout are worthwhile to consider.
Technology continues on its path to the future.
It marches on to its future — with or without us — unless we engage in the conversation about it. And how we want to shape it.
Accepting the integration of neural implants that lead to a new level — a new sort of collective conscience might be a complex decision that requires our careful consideration.
Or maybe its potential benefits — will just find us.
The next level of us will become a strengthened community, enhanced by our collective knowledge, and our deeper sense of purpose, and that will come from a technology that links our brains and ourselves.
Inviting us into a more interconnected (and fulfilling?) way of being.
Cyndi Coon is a time traveler and rule-bender, nerding out for good using data, science and curious questions as an Applied Futurist, author, creative, ecosystem builder, facilitator, producer, researcher, storyteller and publisher for private partnerships, enterprise, governments, the military, higher education, and industry. She is an Affiliate at the Center for Emergency Management & Homeland Security, and is a Co-Chair of the Human Wisdom Committee IEEE Planet Positive Strong Sustainability by Design and the Chief Media Officer for Content Evolution. She leads the i4j (global innovation for jobs workforce) and Coolabilities communities. She is the Founder and Principal Futurist at Applied Futures Lab, Founder at Laboratory5 Inc. and Co-Founder of the Threatcasting Lab.
Shannon Mullen O’Keefe is curator for The Museum of Ideas, a project that invites leaders, thinkers and everyday experts to express the ideas that will shape our better future. She is also a thinker, strategist, and writer, dedicated to imagining what we can build and achieve together. She is a founding member of QCollective and co-author of a new book 10 Moral Questions: How to design tech and AI responsibly. She practiced the art of leadership for close to three decades, leading workplace engagement and culture change initiatives. She has served in leadership and executive roles in a global professional services firm and in a nature-based nonprofit organization. Find her leadership thinking on linkedin.
