On this page I address the most common concerns specifically about my proposal for mental unity. Each heading is something at least one other person has stated in opposition to mental unity, followed by my response to everybody who has said it or plans to say it to me.

If you have a concern, please check if it is one of these that have already been addressed (or very similar to one) before asking me; if your concern (or a similar one) is among the following but my response does not put your concern to rest, please explain why my response is unsatisfactory. Thank you.

It's mind control.

No, it isn't. Mental unity does not compel people to accept one specific set of ideas; all our ideas, no matter who or how many people first adhere to them, will be given the same chance to be honestly assessed for their logical soundness and acted upon accordingly.

Recall, from the front page, the visual representation of mental unity (reproduced below). Notice the narrow blue arrows; although some people have fewer logically sound ideas than others do, the logically sound ideas that they do have will be acknowledged and taken seriously nonetheless.

What ideas are logically sound will be consensually determined through this objective weighing of all our ideas, without any bias toward or misinterpretation of those ideas.

It's impossible.

That's exactly what people two-hundred years ago would say about so many of the things we have today, but as Michael Persinger agrees (see Research, "No More Secrets"), technology develops, sometimes more rapidly than we think. As Persinger and Robert Duncan (see Research, "Intelligent Systems of Control") also demonstrate, we even already have quite some direction in creating mental unity.

It's a cult.

Mental unity is a thing to be created, not a secretive or ritualistic group of people.

The people who support mental unity do not form such a group, either; our intentions are plainly stated and we want mental unity to be scientifically created for the benefit of the entire world.

It's excessive to connect everybody's minds.

There are indeed some who can convert to living peaceful lives by simple dialogue; hopefully, through reading this, you're proving to be one of them if you are not already generally moral. However, there are many other corrupted ones who simply take everything with bias or simply ignore enlightening words. Mental unity solves this problem by undermining their ignorance at the source, sneaking past the barrier of biased perception and showing them the truth as it is understood by those who understand it best, allowing all others to understand it equally.

Also, as stated on the homepage, it will not be necessary to have all humanity perpetually participating in the unity. I suggest starting small by creating mental unities for only small groups of people—as Robert Duncan confirms has already been accomplished (see Research, "Intelligent Systems of Control")—, then perfecting the system (so that it creates truly empathic connections) and gradually expanding it to include more people (ensuring its effectiveness is maintained with each increase), in whatever way this is determined necessary. We may conclude, for example, that humanity will only need a once-a-day "check-in" into the unity, or we may make it so that people will only share each other's thoughts in situations where empathy and immediate understanding is most needed.

This is a conspiracy theory.

Where did I say anything about two or more people secretly planning something malicious? (That's what a "conspiracy" is.) I am openly discussing my intentions to create mental unity in an effort to stop all the world's suffering—which is as non-malicious as it gets.

It would get rid of government, which is necessary for societal development.

It would indeed get rid of the need for government, since everybody would simply govern themselves through the consensual wisdom of the whole and without harming anybody else. With that, it will also get rid of all corruption in government, and all laws will simply be moral codes that can change depending on the circumstances of everybody's needs in every specific situation.

However, it will not eradicate leadership: the ability of people to contribute and lead decisions, which is what's really necessary for societal development. There are those who have acumen on how to distribute tasks and resources and those who do not, and the know-how of the former group will be diffused to the latter group so that decisions can be made and everyone can come to an agreement on them and participate where needed.

It should be clear that government is not inherently evil; it's just ineffective. People working within government can have the best intentions, pass laws that promote the general welfare, and implement those laws with some success; however, no law, no matter the punishment for breaking it, is inherently unbreakable, and no punishment for breaking any such law is inherently inescapable—or, even if such a punishment could be administered unerringly to anyone who broke such a law, there is nothing that can inherently deter the lawbreaker from being willing to break the law despite the guaranteed punishment. Therefore, no matter how just the law, someone can always break it, leading, of course, to injustice—unless nobody is, in the first place, willing to commit injustice.

Any politician who truly cares about leadership more than he or she cares about any official title of leadership—who truly cares about improving society more than he or she cares about any personal benefits for doing so (or seeming to do so)—will have no problem sharing with the entire population his or her wisdom about how society should be organized, ensuring that his or her wisdom is understood by everybody equally and followed by everybody equally.

As Einstein said, "Peace cannot be kept by [governmental] force; it can only be achieved by understanding"—the understanding of all.

It's communism.

Again, it's no form of government at all. It's just a way to make sure we all live without causing or allowing each other to suffer. This will require some redistribution of resources, but this redistribution will not be dictated by one person or group; whatever material possessions a person can prove, through the unity, that he or she deserves for him- or herself, and for which nobody else has a greater need, will be respected that person's own, as everybody will understand. Everything else will be either shared with or given to somebody who truly does need it more, as everybody will also understand.

This phenomenon of everybody sharing where necessary, along with the end of all violence, hatred, and environmental destruction, is not communism; it's just common-sense fairness.

I don't want people knowing my bank account (or other private) information.

Nobody will use that information against you because we'll all empathize with each other; financial information and money in general will in fact become obsolete, since we will simply make sure we all have the resources to live comfortably.

It restricts (political) freedom.

It only deters people from harming each other, which is what we shouldn't do anyway and which is what our current legal systems try to stop us from doing anyway (but, again, much less successfully).

And nobody will be forced to labor unfairly for anybody else; we will simply make sure all our needs are fulfilled and allow each other to pursue our desires that do not cut into anybody else's justified desire to live peacefully.

It suppresses free speech.

Mental unity does not suppress free speech; it simply allows everybody to look at each other's thoughts objectively and therefore to reach a logically tenable consensus on what is true about the world and how we should act toward each other in every situation, and if anybody comes up with even better reasoning for an alternative viewpoint, that too will be understood and everybody's behavior adjusted accordingly.

The philosopher John Stuart Mill said that "unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable," so in mental unity, it will be desirable.

We need to be grateful for disagreement.

We can still disagree about individualized preferences for things that don't cause harm for each other, but on how to act toward each other in every situation, we must agree for there to be harmony. There is no need for the potential murderer and the potentially murdered to "disagree" about who should live.

Also see the above John Stuart Mill quote.

It takes away people's free will in general.

There is no such thing as "free will" anyway.

Our "will", which simply means "desire", is not "free" but caused by our biological construction and our environment, which are forced upon us, for better or for worse, with no true choice of our own. This is not to deny our decision-making capacity; we make decisions, obviously, but the desires that cause our decisions are purely the result of our past experience, over which we have no control. We only have the illusion of free will because of our unawareness of all the conditions that lead to our actions.

Thus, since control over our actions by external forces inescapable, but this control does not have to lead us into suffering, we may as well simply be controlled toward good.

BF Skinner (see Research, "Beyond Freedom and Dignity") does a great job of further debunking the idea of free will.

The new economy could be disastrous.

Disaster will in fact be prevented as everyone's economic acumen—just like the aforementioned leadership acumen—forms the perfect way to distribute resources and help everybody get what they need.

There would be no more surprise.

This will only be completely true if we take mental unity to its most extreme form, which, again, will not be necessary. Regardless, humans have abused the power of surprise, and social-media-sensation marriage proposals do not take precedence over preventing the next "surprise" mass-shooting.

Surprise will be reduced regardless of the way mental unity is determined best for all humanity, but even if mental unity went to its most extreme form, everything—such as works of art—could still be enjoyed with the awareness of it as it is being created. Artificial intelligence, however, may still gain the ability of random generation for the sake of entertainment, but before that matters at all, we have to stop everybody's suffering (all your own suffering).

It would take away the human aspect of saying one thing and thinking differently.

You mean lying. Well, the power of lie has abused and been abused by humans as well. It will become unnecessary anyway as we will all understand each other and positively work to improve ourselves from all of our flaws: both flaws that cause us to deceive each other harmfully and flaws about which we may lie for any other reason.

You're trying to make everyone equal like in "Harrison Bergeron".

In Kurt Vonnegut's story "Harrison Bergeron" (1961), everybody is given handicaps so that nobody is smarter, stronger, better-looking, more eloquent, more graceful, or visually keener than anyone else; basically, everybody is equal in ability. Mental unity will not lead to this kind of equality; everybody's positive characteristics will be accepted and used for the good of the whole, and all jealousy and discrimination currently engendered by people's inequality in such characteristics will be eliminated as people cease to blame each other for conditions beyond their control, share each other's joy in personal gains that occur at nobody else's expense, humbly work to improve their characteristics which they can improve, and learn to accept any minor shortcomings which they cannot. Where people will be equal is simply in their factual understanding of the world and in their decency toward each other.

You're trying to control people like in "A Clockwork Orange".

In A Clockwork Orange (1971; directed by Stanley Kubrick; based on the 1962 novel by Anthony Burgess), teenage sociopath Alex DeLarge is treated with a form of aversive conditioning known as the Ludovico technique, by which he becomes sickened by his own violent impulses and is left defenseless against the vengeance of his former victims; the government researchers responsible for Alex's treatment are criticized for seeming to turn an organic being into an unnaturally controlled machine (hence the metaphoric title) and thus to take away his free will, even though, of course, there is truly no such thing in the first place: People only behave the way they do because of the conditions in their lives that make them behave that way, and everybody deserves to be properly instructed on how to behave decently. With that in mind, mental unity similarly makes no difference to the immutable fact that people are controlled; it simply channels our control toward betterment, and unlike the singular treatment of the Ludovico technique, everybody's aggressions will be not only suppressed by our direct empathy for each other's pain but soon dissolved altogether as we learn to genuinely love each other as ourselves.

You're trying to cull the world's population like in "Kingsman: The Secret Service".

In Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014; directed by Matthew Vaughn), the antagonist Richmond Valentine concludes that humans are a virus on the Earth and subsequently tries to kill all but the most wealthy by sending out signals that cause people to kill each other off. I prefer Peter Russell's view (see Research, "The Global Brain") that humans are actually the intelligence of the Earth and can be improved in its favor. As such, mental unity will not kill off anybody; it will reform everybody so that we act peacefully toward each other and our environment.

You're trying to create the Khala from StarCraft, which was hacked by aliens and almost destroyed the universe.

I did not get this idea from StarCraft (never even played it); as explained on the Background page, I came up with the idea of mental unity on my own after coming across "The Egg".

Still, I'll address your argument about this thing called the Khala as follows: As explained in an earlier concern about mental unity being hacked, when all humanity is in it, they will see the benefits of it and not want to turn against it, and even if the desire to do so arose, it would be detected and the person who had the desire contained. It's a bit of a stretch to use an aspect of a science fiction story, in which an alien race almost destroys the universe, to convey of the dangers of humanity developing mental unity; though it might not go completely smoothly at first, as Michael Persinger once again agrees (see Research, "No More Secrets"), the technology can be perfected.

Plus, if humanity comes into contact with extraterrestrials (in the real world) while we are mentally united, we will surely by that point have the capacity to detect their arrival beforehand, therefore preventing any outside sabotage, and we may even be able to assimilate them into the unity; even if we can't, though, and if they are belligerent, we will be able to fight effectively against them. (Part of humanity's aggregate wisdom will be the precaution that, even though weapons will be useless among us due to our newfound mutual respect, we may still need defense in such a case of first contact, though only if we truly cannot make the aliens as peaceful as us.)

You're trying to spy on us like the NSA.

If you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide; I know this has been said hypocritically by governments who spy on their citizens yet keep their own activities classified, but the vital difference is that in mental unity, everybody will be equally guarded to make sure there is no harm done. And again, participation in the unity will not have to be perpetual; something like a daily "check-in" (or maybe even a once-in-a-lifetime "check-in") will suffice to keep our intentions toward each other pure and our wisdom high.

Nothing will be accomplished until our evil government is destroyed.

If happens to be the case that the government is evil, then that's why I want everyone to understand the goodness of mental unity and to pressure the government not only for its creation but for transparency in doing so. The government says, "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide," so we should indeed reply, "Then don't hide anything from us either."

Robert Duncan (see Research, "Intelligent Forms of Control") indeed warns that the technology in developing mental unity can be used maliciously, but at the same time, the technology can be turned against any government figure who plans to use it maliciously. We must pressure the government to be transparent in developing the technology as well, and if the government refuses to do so and confirms its hypocrisy in hiding its own actions from us, then it will be clear that the figures in power plan to use the technology maliciously, and we can overthrow them.

Anyone within the government who is not corrupt and who truly cares about properly leading society rather than any concomitant private interests in doing so (namely money or recognition) will also join us in the creation of mental unity. Again, there is no inherent evil in government; government just isn't effective, and anyone who truly cares to lead society can right now simply use his or her influence in government to transcend government, through the creation of mental unity.

People will die fighting against this, and only a villain would call these deaths necessary.

People who are outright violent will want to maintain their evil ways, so they naturally will resist, so the creation of the system of mental unity would have to be protected so that people can finally live peacefully without their terror; it will be unfortunate if some have to die resisting, but those who do not die will get the chance to live peacefully as well once the system is complete.

As for those who are killed out of defense for world peace, it will be no different from any other situation in which the greater good needs to be protected; for example, when a crazed gunman is shooting up a public place full of innocent people, and he clearly demonstrates that he will not relent, he himself is best to be shot in order to protect those innocents, and it is indeed highly lamentable that he would have to die just because the malconditioning of his life raised him to make such violent decisions. However, it is simply the terrible way of the world today that a person will be given unfortunate life circumstances that mentally damage him or her and ultimately prove detrimental to those around him or her.

Plus, consider that the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in his 1999 book Ethics for the New Millennium (published by Riverhead Books), wrote the following after discussing the phenomenon of modern warfare, whereby the elites who start wars do so almost solely to the detriment of people besides themselves:

"In view of this, I could see developing a 'smart' bullet that could seek out those who decide [to wage] wars in the first place. That would seem to me more fair, and on these grounds I would welcome a weapon that eliminated the decision-makers while leaving the innocent unharmed" (205).

Even one of the most peaceful individuals on Earth understands that some people are better off dead than persisting in the destruction they cause for others. Of course it would be best if they were simply reformed to live compassionately, but until mental unity is created, this simply isn't always feasible.

As the world is now, tough decisions simply have to be made to protect the greater good, and, as in the gunman example, it is not person A's fault if person B creates a situation in which, no matter what person A does, bad things will happen, but if person A is knowingly able to minimize the bad, such is his or her responsibility. "Sacrifice", therefore, is sometimes necessary, but it is not intrinsically villainous; in fact, in these cases it is simply a response to the restrictions imposed on us by the villains. Back to my idea, however, mental unity will completely restructure society so that the highest fairness is granted to absolutely everybody, and violent situations will be avoided completely.

The more people who listen to me now and understand this goodness of mental unity, the less resistance there will be in the first place.

Utopia is impossible.

It's been impossible because of our egoic division, which has allowed "money troubles and internal squabbling" to nullify people's efforts to create better societies. Mental unity, however, changes that entirely, allowing us to finally understand each other and agree on how to act toward each other.

It would create a hivemind, making people dispensable and all the same.

We will not lose our uniqueness completely; all personal and cultural preferences will be maintained as long as they do not harm others. In this way, it's more accepting than a simple hivemind, for it ensures that everybody maintains personality and self-awareness as long as their personalities do not cause harm, and it's more benign than a simple hive mentality, for it amplifies the good of human nature and compassion: We would only sacrifice our time and energy for others whose situations are more severe only when we are able to do so, but this is only doing good.

We would still be important as individuals, but we would simply be able to work together for common goals in completely positive ways. For example, a child in a burning building would not be able to be saved by his or her parent who is far away from the location, but others nearby would all be able to save the life thanks to the diffused knowledge of the situation and universal compassion; this might be seen to prevent the parent's gratification for saving his or her own child, but it only matters that we can all work to help each other and love each other equally. It ultimately doesn't matter at all who does the good, as long as it gets done.

However, I won't continue to argue over semantics; I only ask that you understand why the negative connotation of the term "hivemind" is not accurate regarding the nature of mental unity. Such connotation, like positive and negative connotation with all words, arises from association of the words with popular prototypes and prior examples of the concepts represented; "hivemind" in most people evokes images of the Borg of the Star Trek universe which entirely strips members of individuality and independent thought, or real-life colonies of ants and bees who labor tirelessly and endlessly out of mindless instinct so contrary to the higher and perhaps the very defining human activities of leisure and reflection. These associations are why I do not hold the term "hivemind" in the same regard as I do mental unity, because unlike these prototypical images, mental unity is truly the greatest thing that can happen to humanity, as you may learn from the other arguments on this page. Words in themselves are neutral and, as Eckhart Tolle says, mere stepping stones, only meaningful insofar as they resonate with your understanding, and the popular emotional baggage around them can be dismissed by those who try; however, since I do not expect everyone be open (in this way) to things explicitly labeled a "hivemind", I do not consider this term synonymous with "mental unity".

If you do consider it synonymous because you support mental unity and have indeed simply grasped the term in a new understanding outside of the common negative perception, that works for you; if you consider them synonymous because you oppose mental unity and deem the negative connotations appropriate, please refer to all the true benefits mentioned on this page, and then if they convince you, please reconsider the appropriateness of the term and whether you can drop the negative connotations. And regardless of whether the nature of mental unity fits into your operational definition of a "hivemind", it must be clear that mental unity is at least distinct from the popular ideas of this term.

Humans are supposed to evolve to surpass each other.

With the recognition of our equality in deserving not to suffer, there will be no need for competition; we will all simply work together to ensure nobody that nobody suffers.

What you're proposing is an extreme form of escapism.

By no means; mental unity is the way to acknowledge fully and face directly (and most effectively) all of our problems.

You're nobody to decide that the world needs to be saved, or to try to save it.

It's not me who's deciding; it's everybody suffering who either tacitly or explicitly demands a serious change in the world, so that they suffer no longer.

It's not me who's saving it, either; I'm just an advocate for mental unity, which others will understand and ultimately actualize, at which point world salvation will truly come from every human being as we all work to improve each other's lives.

People are already connected through the Internet.

They are to some degree, but not to the degree necessary for world peace; only a third of the world even has access to the Web, and even if everyone did, there would still be misunderstanding as people's ignorance is not undermined at the source. The Internet, in fact, has already exacerbated the phenomenon of group polarization, by which people's insular mindsets are reinforced as they only converse with like minds; we need a cross-ideological connection where everybody will actually listen to the true value of what others have to say, and the Internet, as it is now, clearly has not sufficed for that.

It's wrong to change human nature.

Look at all the problems human nature has brought: Some of it undoubtedly needs to be changed. Besides, it is only the bad of it that will be eradicated.

Force upon others is immoral.

Those who are malicious do not deserve the choice on whether or not to be part of the unity, for they will choose wrong because they are too entrenched in their ways cannot be convinced of its benefits by mere words. Plus, mental unity itself does not force people to do anything but simply to understand each other's perspectives—which everybody needs to do anyway—so that they can voluntarily act peacefully toward each other.

Besides, if you truly believe everybody should be left to their own devices, this belief is inherently self-contradictory, for to respect everybody's desires is to respect the desires of some to disrespect the desires of others. To tolerate intolerance is to be intolerant; some value judgment is inevitable. It makes the most sense, therefore, simply to ensure that everyone is allowed only to do that which is harmless to others.

If you still support total freedom, keep in mind that that's already been attempted; that was during the very beginning of human civilization, right before the first people who subjugated others realized that they were "free" to do so, eventually leading right to where we are today.

"Freedom, in the sense of absence of any constraining control, must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek." —Karl Popper

It would cause unjust pain.

People who are not already distressed about the world's problems—especially because they enjoy or contribute to them—need to empathize with others' suffering to stop creating it. It would not even hurt people directly but simply show them the negative impact of certain things on others.

That way, the suffering or potential suffering of the victims will be understood by the perpetrators as well as everybody not involved, and everybody will be pressured not to hurt each other anymore, all to avoid each other's suffering. Plus, it is not just the emotional negativity that will be diffused but the spiritual understanding on how to allay it, making it pain without the suffering, until the pain itself can abe resolved.

In the unity, first will come understanding of who is suffering or causing suffering (respectively), empathy for the suffering, sympathy for the conditions of everybody's lives (both the perpetrators' and the victims') that led them to such unfortunate experiences, consensus on the necessary steps to solve all such problems, and spiritual assistance in the meantime. All this will quickly end our suffering.

And again, this growing will be gradual, and our participation won't be incessant.

Atrocity only takes place from group identification, not the ego.

This certainly isn't the case for most lone sociopaths and psychopaths, but where there is group victimization, such results from a group-ego, where a small amount of people may be united to some degree but still ignorant of the equality of all. Even if all of humanity seemed to be united, there could still potentially be ignorance toward other intelligent civilizations, but this will not be the case if we are united through mental unity, since people's wisdom of compassion and learning from the past will prevail over any malice toward other civilizations we may encounter in the future.

The ego isn't the cause of the world's problems; greed is.

Greed directly stems from the ego and people's misunderstanding of each other.

I only need my gun to protect me.

No amount of physical weaponry can ensure your safety. Besides, it's better just to ensure that nobody tries to attack you in the first place so that no life has to be lost.

In the meantime, however, I do support gun rights. I think there should be some background checks in obtaining for selling them legally, but any attempt to outlaw them entirely won't stop them from being obtained illegally. (Again, no law is intrinsically unbreakable.) What should ultimately be eradicated is the desire for guns (to initiate violence) and the need for guns (to protect the innocent from those who initiate violence), and mental unity, of course, is the way to accomplish this: by purifying our desires toward each other so that there's no aggression in the first place.

People won't stop hating each other.

Hatred toward individuals is unjustified in the first place because although you may disagree with a person's actions—and certain actions are undoubtedly disagreeable—, if you were conceived with the exact same DNA as another person and exposed to all the exact same things since conception as that other person, you would be absolutely no different from him or her. Therefore, you cannot deem yourself "better" than him or her simply because you were granted a different set of values. That is not to say that everybody's morals are equal; it simply means that all illusorily separate experiential entities are equally bestowed their respective morals or lack thereof beyond any true credit or blame of their own.

As everyone understands this simple fact as part of the aggregate wisdom of mental unity, and as the trauma of people's pasts and their lack of moral instruction is identified as the reason for their current harmful behavior, and as people are reformed out of their harmful ways, hatred will be fully eliminated.

People would hate each other for accidentally hurting themselves, except for masochists who will enjoy the increased pain.

As mentioned, personal hatred will be eliminated, and with everyone possessing the wisdom of the whole, pain-causing mistakes will be significantly reduced, and pain along with it. Where there still is some small pain, people will be able to treat it positively—not suffer from the pain—because of our collective spiritual wisdom.

As for people who seem to enjoy pain, this will be understood as a disorder; their lives will be analyzed to find the source of their inner pain which they truly want to heal but simply haven't broken out of the behavioral patterns that keep inviting it, and through the diffusion of spiritual wisdom, their pain will be healed.

The world has to change step-by-step, not all at once.

It is only the blatant, immediate dangers, such as people killing and torturing each other, that will be stopped immediately. Then we will reach consensuses on how to resolve everything else, and then organize ourselves to carry on each step of improvement.

There's no one true way for everybody to follow.

That's why this is no set-in-stone system on how to live; it's merely a way for everybody to figure out how to live on a day-to-day basis while respecting each other.

People need suffering to grow.

You're referring to pain, not suffering. There's an important difference: Pain—an acute feeling of disagreement with the way things are, which spurs a desire to improve the way things are—does enhance life in small amounts. However, when there is pain beyond one's capacity to emotionally/mentally/spiritually accept pain, and that person therefore feels a sense of utter disgust for his or her current situation as completely purposeless, then there is suffering—which, by this definition, is intrinsically undesirable and unenjoyable. It is perfectly possible to get from one state to a more improved state all while maintaining a positive attitude; suffering is completely unnecessary for such improvement and usually even hinders it.

All one can get out of suffering is the wisdom on how to avoid it and the compassion not to want anyone else to go through it. In mental unity, all humanity will attain a large portion of this wisdom, and everyone will have the immediate compassion never to wish suffering upon each other.

This is trying to enter God's territory, which is wrong.

We cannot wait for any deity to save us; humanity's salvation is in its own hands.

You're doubting people's goodness.

I don't deny that people have good inside them; I just acknowledge that this good is too often buried under too much darkness for it to be unearthed by conventional means. In mental unity, their inner light will be brought to the surface with the most direct help from those in whom it already shines outward.

As Marcus Aurelius said, "Within is the fountain of good, and it will ever bubble up, if thou wilt ever dig"—except many lose the ability to dig alone.

This idea is based on mistrust of others.

No, it's based on the simple recognition that our suffering is rooted in our ignorance and lack of empathy; this might imply that some people in this world indeed do not deserve trust (as is certainly true), but the main point is that these people simply need to be reformed, and thus made worthy of trust, so that we don't suffer.

People will be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Initiating people into the unity implies no specific assumption about their guilt or innocence; the intention is simply to spread the wisdom of those who happen to be innocent and cure those who happen to be guilty of their corrupt ways. Even if one is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, it will be quite irrelevant as such proof will arrive literally within seconds of that person's mind coming into the unity.

Privacy will be lost and everyone's secrets revealed.

Where people feel guilty about any secret wrongs committed in the past, their guilt along with any potential personal hatred toward them will be abolished and the past reconciled.

Where there are some simpler things people want to keep secret, with the diffusion of knowledge and people's newfound respect for each other, people will come to be accepted perfectly and handled with the utmost sense of morality and maturity, which will be edified in everybody with the diffusion of our wisdom. This will rewrite the norms of society so that everything we do that is truly harmless will be accepted.

If you still oppose a loss of privacy, keep in mind there have been much greater losses in history, most of which are in some way caused by people's secrecy, that are being prevented for your personal future and the world's future. Besides, once again, humanity does not need to be perpetually united.

Plus, privacy is no more of a human right than compassion and reasoning are human responsibilities; the former is at least partially dispensable for the sake of the latter.

It's impossible for everyone to know everything at once.

Nobody will know everything at once; everyone will simply be able to find anything through each other's minds, whenever they are connected (which, again, won't have to be always).

How can people understand each other's emotions when some people don't even understand their own?

Emotions themselves won't have to be understood. It's just the emotional positivity and negativity behind the emotions that will be diffused so that we simply understand not to cause suffering for each other and how not to do so. If someone doesn't know why he or she feels a certain way or what exactly he or she wants, he or she will simply be able to deter others from doing something the instant that he or she realizes that what they are doing is causing him or her to suffer.

Religion is the cause of all the world's problems.

Many atrocities have been committed because of religious fundamentalism. However, atheism is not a cure-all; the belief that one's current human life is all one will ever experience motivates some atheists—not all, but some—to be as selfish as possible: to commit whatever atrocities they want as long as they believe they will not be punished for it in this life. (I have personally spoken with people who admit this to be their worldview and resulting moral compass.)

If religious fundamentalists and atheists alike instead understood the simple truth that we are all one consciousness, then they would all understand that punishment for their wrongdoings is truly inevitable, since they are bound to undergo everything they cause or allow for others when they live those others' lives directly, even if they face no contingent punishment in their own lives. This, by the way, is nothing like the psychologically scarring belief that one might be tortured infinitely for certain finite actions (many of which are truly harmless); there is no eternal hell, but the hell that is many people's daily lives, and which we have the power to alleviate, is quite enough.

However, because of people's overall willful ignorance that stems from our egoic separation—the true cause of our problems—, some people will ever accept (through mere words) the truth of our one consciousness or any other reason to stop causing or allowing others to suffer, so the mere spreading of this message is not a cure-all either. That is why we need to create mental unity.

And again, you don't have to believe all the world's suffering is literally your own in order to want to stop all the world's suffering, but if you truly do have this desire, then you're at least willing to understand the goodness and feasibility of mental unity, which will ensure an end to all of our suffering and by which we will eventually reach a consensus on all our beliefs.

Religions still won't be able to agree with each other.

As the understanding of our one consciousness is illuminated as the basis for all the major religions, people of different faiths will agree. Even if they don't, people will still be able to respect each other for their peaceful beliefs and, again, be able to respect all their harmless traditions. As Hans Urs von Balthasar put it, "Even if a unity of faith is not possible, a unity of love is."

Humanity has a limited scope of wisdom.

All the ideas that have been thought by the billions of humans who have lived up to today will surely suffice for us to get through our practical daily lives with nearly perfect avoidance of suffering. Plus, as we continue in the unity, our wisdom still will be able to grow and asymptotically approach perfection.

People are incorrigible; nothing will change them.

They only seem hopeless because their ignorance that causes their problems is yet to be undermined at the source. Mental unity will change that; let's give it a chance.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, "If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume [...] that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world." Mental unity is that opportunity; don't say it won't work without having it tested.

I don't want to be mentally united with people who have hurt me; they deserve punishment.

Mental unity is precisely how to get them to stop victimizing you and everyone else. They may deserve proper treatment to stop their evil ways, but remember that hatred toward them is unjustified and that getting them to understand the wrongness of their ways will effectively cure them. True justice is in reconciliation, not vengeance.

There is no objective morality.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't agree on how to act toward each other so that we don't suffer, for our wellbeing still matters to us.

Humans are not truly separate from other life forms, so you cannot discriminate which minds are to be assimilated into the unity.

I understand that all life is interconnected, and that the human species is ultimately an arbitrary classification of organisms that simply happen to be similar, since all life ultimately comes from the same source and thus is only superficially different.

Thus, it may not be solely humanity that needs to be united but simply any life form that is found to operate on a certain frequency of consciousness and thus needs to be united to prevent conflict with other highly intelligent entities, on Earth or beyond.

Robert Duncan (see Research, "Intelligent Systems of Control") offers some insight on how this may be accomplished.

People already understand the world's problems and have sympathy/empathy; it does nothing.

That is because the problems are not part of their daily lives. Plus, those who enjoy others' suffering and therefore cause the problems clearly lack compassion and need to understand the negative effect of their actions on others.

You might say sympathy does not work, for example, because on Christmas Day in 1914, British and German soldiers played soccer in no-man's-land, when they were before slaughtering each other, and then they resumed the slaughter the very next day, displaying how sympathy can be present but doesn't stop people from harming each other. Such is actually an erroneous conclusion, for this was sympathy among a small group of people who were in fact being ordered by others to slaughter each other; there was no sympathy between the leaders of the Entente and Alliance, since that would have been necessary for there to be lasting peace, as would have been the entire world's understanding that it is wrong to kill out of greed and powerlust.

It's wrong to invade the mental space of the innocent without their consent.

Contrary, it would be highly impractical to have to get absolutely everyone's consent for them to enter the unity. For example, a seemingly peaceful man might deny mental unity and seemingly have the right to do so as he is already moral, but in reality he kidnaps people and tortures them in his basement, and his victims do want mental unity to stop their torturer from harming them but obviously cannot give consent because of their situation.

Since mental unity is the way to know who's truly innocent, how are we to fully discern beforehand who's innocent enough not to need reformation through the unity?

Now, it's not that we suspect everybody of being a secret serial killer; it's just that, if we allow some people not to be part of the unity just because we personally "trust" that they're already innocent enough not to need reformation, then people who are criminals will attest to each other's innocence and also demand exceptions, effectively defeating the purpose of making sure we're all good people.

Psychopaths would vicariously enjoy the suffering of their victims.

It's impossible to enjoy any suffering that one experiences for oneself, given the aforementioned definition of suffering as inherently undesirable and unenjoyable. In mental unity, a psychopath will understand his or her victims' suffering as completely negative from their perspective, and he or she will thus be deterred from harming them.

Even if this somehow doesn't work (as perhaps in the early development of mental unity), and if psychopaths' brains are truly incorrigible through mental unity alone, it would at least be much easier to find and detain them (since their own knowledge of their current location will be made known to everybody). Also, the prevalence of people's higher wisdom (as aforementioned) will ensure that their corrupt thoughts at the very least do not corrupt anyone else, and accelerated medicinal advancements along with spiritual healing (also aforementioned) will eventually cure psychopathy completely.

People can find a way to stop the system.

If they are part of it and see its benefits, they will not want to do so in the first place, and even if they do gain such a desire, it will be noted by everyone else and put down. The technological system itself might falter at some point (if artificially constructed machines are needed to maintain the connection), but the population will still be able to remain peaceful, especially considering that (once again) a perpetual unification won't be necessary.

This does nothing about limited resources.

Through the unity, we will learn to share as fairly as possible and conserve resources as efficiently as possible. Specifically with the issue of overpopulation, diffused knowledge of how not to have more children than one can raise decently will make preservation much easier. As Gandhi put it, "There is enough for everybody's need, [just] not enough for everybody's greed"—and the latter will be significantly curbed.

Humanity can resolve itself independently.

Perhaps, but this can only happen very slowly and with so much more suffering that can otherwise be prevented through the unity. Mental unity, then, is simply a catalyst that can save us all—once again, the one that is us allgreat deal of trouble.

You're only pointing out the worst things about humanity to push your own agenda.

My agenda is precisely to stop the worst things about humanity. The rape and torture of children and animals, along with all other atrocities, simply won't stop until all our minds are reformed not to want to commit these atrocities in the first place, and mental unity is the way to accomplish that.

I don't deny that there are many good people in the world; I simply want to ensure that we all are only good to each other.

There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

The problem there is that not everybody wants peace for the world; if everybody did, nobody would start the world's problems in the first place. Some way is necessary to change these people's minds so that they agree to peace, and mental unity, the telepathic connection of our minds for full empathy and understanding, is that way.

It's not always clear who can be called evil in this world.

Evil is the desire for others to suffer, so it's simply a matter of intentionswhich (although they have their due praise or reprehension) are secondary to the actual results of a person's actions. The focus of mental unity, therefore, is not evil but simply suffering itself—intentional and unintentional on the wrongdoer's part—, which is simply identified and felt as if it were the wrongdoer's own so that it can all finally stop. Besides, anyone who is revealed to have evil intentions will be transformed out of them anyway, and they (again) will not be personally hated for the conditions of their past that made them evil.

It will be boring if we already know everything.

Humanity as a whole will still make new discoveries and creations; we'll simply accelerate scientific advancement since we'll be able to work together mind-to-mind and come to a consensus about the truth more easily.

What happens when there is an experience that some enjoy while others don't?

Personal preferences that are harmless will be maintained and respected, and where one person enjoys for oneself something that others would not enjoy for themselves, the joy itself which that one person gleans will be shared in the unity.

If someone enjoys some physical pain that others would dislike (and there's nothing more important that has to be done for others), this too will be accepted as something causing happiness, which will be shared as a positive experience. This, however, is only assuming that the masochism is not a disorder caused by a person's past pain which he or she actually wants to escape instead of exacerbate; if this is the case (which it usually if not always is), that person will receive help for his or her condition, as mentioned previously.

Most entertainment would be ruined since there'd be no more violence.

Right now, violent media contributes to real-world violence, at least when it's coupled with the unfairness in certain people's lives that make them seek vengeance against others; preserving this entertainment, therefore, certainly is not a priority over preventing the violence from which people suffer in real life.

However, once our real-life suffering is resolved, and if it is determined (through our aggregate wisdom) that we can (and still want to) produce works of art depicting violence (without that violence spilling over into the real world), then we may still do so.

If telepathy is possible, demonstrate it right now.

Possible; not already established as a controlled capability within every person.

[Any ad-hominem attack.]

Instead of trying to make this about me, let's actually listen to the reasoning behind this idea and why it is of such grave importance to you and the entire rest of the world.

[Any statement of refusal to listen to this idea.]

In that case, thank you for demonstrating why we need more than mere words to effect real change in the world.

As Thomas Paine said, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Not to worry, though; you'll be revived eventually.

Add headline

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. I'm a great place for you to tell your story and let your visitors know a little more about you.