What unites all of humanity?

[coberst]

What unites all of humanity?

Our cognitive structure unites all of humanity.

What is our cognitive structure?

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed empirical evidence to support a revolutionary new comprehension of human cognition. These three major findings of a second generation of cognitive science are:

The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is moistly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

Taken together, in a gestalt understanding of human cognition, “these three findings from the science of the mind are inconsistent with central parts of Western philosophy”.

Our comprehension of cognition is of fundamental importance to our comprehension of our self and of the world that we inhabit. Our most basic beliefs are tied directly to our comprehension of human reason. “Reason has been taken for over two millennia as the defining characteristic of human beings. Reason includes not only our capacity for logical inference, but also our ability to conduct inquiry, to solve problems, to evaluate, to criticize, to deliberate about how we should act, and to reach an understanding of ourselves.”

The mind is inherently embodied

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real...That is to say that the sensorimotor system in the human body can perform the functions required to conceptualize and, infer from those conceptions, in a manner required by human cognition. The logical assumption is that these self same sensorimotor neural networks are the networks the body uses to conceptualize during cognition.”

Thought is mostly unconscious

In the 1970s a new body of empirical research began to introduce findings that questioned the traditional Anglo-American cognitive paradigm of AI (Artificial Intelligence), i.e. symbol manipulation.

This research indicates that the neurological structures associated with sensorimotor activity are mapped directly to the higher cortical brain structures to form the foundation for subjective conceptualization in the human brain. In other words, our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation. “It is the rules of thumb among cognitive scientists that unconscious thought is 95 percent of all thought—and that may be a serious underestimate.”

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical

Human reason is an extension of animal reason. The sensorimotor system in the human body can perform the functions required to conceptualize and to infer, i.e. the system controlling bodily movements and perception are theorized to be the same that is used for reasoning and that much of what we thing comes from the unconscious. That which comes from the unconscious has been conceptualized based upon our bodily interaction with the world. We have an embodied mind and the failure to recognize that fact is the primary difference

We constantly make subjective judgments regarding abstract things, such as morality, difficulty, importance; we also have subjective experiences such as affection, desire, and achievement.

The manner in which we reason, and visualize about these matters comes from other domains of experience. “These other domains are mostly sensorimotor domains…as when we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience)…The cognitive mechanism for such conceptualizations is conceptual metaphor, which allows us to use the physical logic of grasping to reason about understanding.”

Metaphor is pervasive throughout thought and language. Primary metaphors might properly be considered to be the fundamental building blocks for our thinking and our communication through language.

“The integrated theory –the four parts together—has an overwhelming implication: We acquire a large system of primary metaphors automatically and unconsciously simply by functioning in the most ordinary of ways in the everyday world from our earliest days…we all naturally think using hundreds of primary metaphors.”

In summation, we have many hundreds of primary metaphors, which together provide a rich inferential structure, imagery, and qualitative feel. These primary metaphors permit our sensorimotor experiences to be used to create subjective experiences. Thus abstract ideas are created that are grounded in everyday experiences.

In modern society new human science theories take generations to seep into the social consciousness. However, new natural science theories are quickly accepted or rejected; when accepted they can immediately impact the world in which we live.

Darwin informs us that the species that is unable to adapt adequately to the changing environment will quickly becomes toast.

Can our civilization, with such a disparity of innovative conditioning, long survive?

Quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson

[Red-Headed]

What unites all of humanity?

Doc Martin boots?

[Pryderi Agni]

What unites all of humanity?

Doc Martin boots?

No, more fundamental than that:santasmil.


What unites humanity?

A common greed and rapacity unites humanity.

Fallacious action unites humanity.

Depravity unites-and characterizes-humanity.

[coberst]

I used this OP to focus attention upon that which is the only firm foundation for our development of a science of morality, i.e. the only thing that is universal to all humans. I shall try to add detail to this structure in later OPs.

[The Comedian]

To the question in the subject line, I'd have to say that "sex" unites all of humanity. It divides us too, funny how sex never makes any sense.

[Judas130]

What are we talking about with 'unite' here?
Rationality to mankind's degree has not yet been bettered (within our understanding of course!). It is something that we all have in common for certain, but it is not something we all choose to use. When rationality is used to whatever degree within one's thought and is propelled into use across the path of another person's own cognitive babble, it is there that rationality does little to unite - in common argumentative discourse!
Philosophy has birthed, via rationality, the greatest rifts between peoples, and also the greatest thought - thought that we still take apart and argue about today and will always.

[coberst]

What are we talking about with 'unite' here?
Rationality to mankind's degree has not yet been bettered (within our understanding of course!). It is something that we all have in common for certain, but it is not something we all choose to use. When rationality is used to whatever degree within one's thought and is propelled into use across the path of another person's own cognitive babble, it is there that rationality does little to unite - in common argumentative discourse!
Philosophy has birthed, via rationality, the greatest rifts between peoples, and also the greatest thought - thought that we still take apart and argue about today and will always.

As I said in the OP "Our cognitive structure unites all of humanity."

[Morden]

I've always thought "self interest" would be a pretty good answer. You're telling us not?

[billl]

Would "We all have the same basic cognitive structure," be an acceptable formulation? Is the usage of "unite" an indirect appeal to a sense of brotherhood or something like that?

[stlukesguild]

Sex and Death

[Jozanny]

Sex and Death

That about covers it mon ami ;). I believe it was Mr. Koppel on Nightline who phrased it, "Death is something we all have to face which no one knows anything about."

Although I will confess not to have read much of this thread, I think it is safe to say shared experience both unites and divides groups of people. I know jack about how you sell your paintings; you probably cannot imagine my crip world.

When I talk about The Literature Network to my ex, I might as well be speaking Czech, point being those who use online communities get it.

[hoope]

No, more fundamental than that:santasmil.


What unites humanity?

A common greed and rapacity unites humanity.

Fallacious action unites humanity.

Depravity unites-and characterizes-humanity.

That is true.. i like that

just to add that .. LOVE also unites us.. and can change alot in humans character

[coberst]

Would "We all have the same basic cognitive structure," be an acceptable formulation? Is the usage of "unite" an indirect appeal to a sense of brotherhood or something like that?

If humans wish to reason together and thus save the species from quick extnction they must find a foundation of common unity. They must find a foundation upon which to construct society. For a while that unity was formed generally upon religion, because religion formed a basis of eternal life upon which all humans want to believe because all normal humans fear death and seek immortality.

The eighteenth centuy Enlightenment destroyed this religious unity and focused upon reason as the unifyng force. Modern society has demonstracted the problem with this solution. We must find something within our self upon which to build a foundation and the only base that I can see is to start with what we all have in common.

Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.

[Judas130]

Perhaps the only way we can 'save the species' is to live naturally. Our prolonged lives and medical healthcare, as well as more money has caused surges of population explosion. This is all unnatural. By mothering our illnesses and indulging in great biomedical sciences, we are prolonging our stay on the planet - but we also deny the possibility of evolution, surely? Natural selection does not take place in western civilisation among humans.
Nature has a way of cancelling things out. If we produce too much pollution, the environment wails in anger. If we have too many humans, we have too little dinner.

Its a very weird thought. Personally I love science...but I can't help feeling this sometimes, if we just subdued ourselves to the health and life expectancy of our fellow animals, in the long run we'd be better off as a species. But as selfish individuals, it is unspeakable to our ears to sacrifice that much.
peace

[Red-Headed]

No, more fundamental than that:santasmil.


What unites humanity?

A common greed and rapacity unites humanity.

Fallacious action unites humanity.

Depravity unites-and characterizes-humanity.

I think that a lot of things can be said to unite humanity. A complex language, social skills, hate, fear, love, kindness, self-sacrifice inter alia but Doc Martin boots can be worn by everyone, male or female, young or old.

So I'm sticking with Docs...

[Judas130]

Perhaps it is our concepts, how single words encapsulate many different emotive words and expression, yet are commonly understood in and of themselves, as well as Doc Martin boots?
peace

[Morden]

I'm not sure I heard the answer.
"Unites," as in brings us all together, or
"Unites," as in a common feature that we all have?

[< James Joyce]

A need for oxygen to survive.

[Red-Headed]

Perhaps it is our concepts, how single words encapsulate many different emotive words and expression, yet are commonly understood in and of themselves, as well as Doc Martin boots?
peace

Language & semiotics are a minefield. There is no other animal that has such a complexity in language on this planet (although some people believe that certain cetaceans come close) so that unites us. But there again, no other animal wears Docs either.

[blazeofglory]

The idea that we are an organic whole unites us.

[kristian]

War. It unites humanity for technological advancement. My 2 cents

[Morden]

Well, one might say that we are all the same in that each of us is different from everyone else.

[blazeofglory]

In fact humanity can be united through understanding one another.

[Judas130]

In fact humanity can be united through understanding one another.

Emphasis on 'can'. Perhaps then, unity or special bonds between mankind can be brought about by listening, and patience, and perhaps some diplomacy.

"We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak." (Epictetus)

Man tends not to listen, but only if we did, we'd be getting somewhere.

[blazeofglory]

Only if we are able to deprogram ourselves and live as real as mountains, rivers, forests, animal and birds.

Only if we demolish this civilization.

Only if a new dawn comes after another great war.

If we forget that we have religions, geographies and the like

[coberst]

Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.

What we share is that all normal humans structure thought in the same way. It is upon this foundation that we can find that which we all share, and it is upon this one and only foundation can we find something that will unite us as one.

[Scheherazade]

What unites all of humanity?A strong, universal contempt for one another.

[Red-Headed]

I still maintain that wearing Docs can unite humanity...

[prendrelemick]

The conflict between self-interest, and empathy for others.

[billl]

That's a good one prendrelemick.

[prendrelemick]

Thanks, but like all the answers posted, it only raises more questions.

[DanielBenoit]

confusion

[D.P.Trottier]

Humanity unites under Truth.
There could be a very long discussion as to what Truth is, but then it would get complex and beyond people who have not studied it; and humanity can hardly unite through things they dont understand.
But when Truth, whatever it may be, is neglected,
like humanity often does,
then our state of uniting begins to loosen apart.

[DanielBenoit]

^That doesn't make any sense.

Everyone has their own ideas of truth and unite into small local sub-sections of humanity, until everyone belongs to some sub-section and create civil war between the collectives.

Just look at religion: All Christain are united under their truth, just as all Muslims and Jews are.

Besides, since when did truth determine anything in our lives? There are the Hamlet-types who ponder upon all of the puzzles of existence, but then their is the rest of the world who live perfectly normal lives without even giving any thought to their surroundings and circumstances (which is not a good thing mind you).

If I were to say what unites most, but not all of humanity, it's evasion.

[D.P.Trottier]

I think "evasion" is part of neglecting truth. despite that there are different religions and each one of those religions has a different set of politics (which is completely seperate from any form of natural truth.) they all share similar morals that can be dated back to Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. but even despite all of that, when you get down to the very basics; if you break your arm, it hurts, if you have sex, its pleasurable. There is a set of natural Truths that nature exists within. What humanity has done by putting our opinions on a pedastal above nature has strayed us from uniting, but it has no effect on Truth. i think The Republic deals with this entire topic better than any of us can.
But, if anyone is sitting in a room alone with a non-threatening stranger, we can all sense the awkward silence. We all may handle it differently and react in our own individual ways, but we can all sense it. I think that, in its own way, has a lot to do with what unites humanity. If that makes any sense. I think the romantics understand me...

[Remarkable]

I don't know if the question has been raised before, but is humanity actually united?...

[DanielBenoit]

I don't know if the question has been raised before, but is humanity actually united?...

In a sense, we're united in negatives; in our confusion, in our absurdity in relation to the world, in our fragmentation.

We are united by our common isolation.

[blazeofglory]

I do not know for sure whether mind is embodied or thought and perception are inseparably one or thought stems from perceptions.

These are philosophical debates in point of fact. It is really hard to subscribe these views, these hypothetical ideas spun by some thinkers.

What mind is and in what it lies is a classic debate.

As to the question what unites humanity, all I can say is by unlearning and ridding ourselves of our prejudices, and stripping us of our affectations, false prides.

Let us behave naturally the way we are opposing all kinds of faiths.
Today faiths fight. not man. Keep man away from faiths he will be more cool and things get better.

Ban all religions and man becomes totally integrated, and control man's excessive greed for wealth there will be fewer cases of aggressions in society.

Let us be cool and modest and understanding. The world is already united and integrated but we are fragmenting it into pieces with our beliefs, faiths, ideologies, religions, socioeconomic gulfs and the like. Even up all these gulfs and gaps we become integrated.

[coberst]

One major problem that all modern societies face is the fact that, while theories of natural science propogate through society very fast because there is often money to be made from these theories, theories of the human sciences propogate very slowy because there is seldom any money to be made from them.

This means that new theories of the human sciences take generations to reach DickandJane. Thus ickandJane remain ignorant of what can be known for generations because we adults never become self-learners. We generally store our intellect in the attic with our year book when our school daze are over.

[soundofmusic]

Just look at religion: All Christain are united under their truth, just as all Muslims and Jews are.

Besides, since when did truth determine anything in our lives?

If I were to say what unites most, but not all of humanity, it's evasion.

:nod: brilliant thought, as usual:nod:

[coberst]

In a sense, we're united in negatives; in our confusion, in our absurdity in relation to the world, in our fragmentation.

We are united by our common isolation.


SGCS (Seond Generation Cognitive Science) informs me that objectivity is our shared subjectivity. That is to say that our individual experiences have great affect upon our thoughts, knowledge, and perceptions; these individual experiences make each of us a very unique creaure; however, like finger prints make each one distinctive they do have something very significant that is the same in all humans.

That which is the same in all individuals is how our cognition functions. We all process experience with the same processing system. It is this processing system that accentuates our commonness. It is this cognitive system that unites all humans.

[caddy_caddy]

suffering and pain

[soundofmusic]

suffering and pain

:idea: It does, at least for a time, doesn't it:( Humans seem to have a very short attention span relating to others suffering and pain.
And those who suffer, well they tend to adapt unless they occasionally have decreased pain or the promise of improved circumstances. What do you think?:thumbs_up

[blazeofglory]

In fact if we do not get hooked to religions, racism, nationalism, fanaticism we become somewhat united if not wholly,for today what sets us apart us is our sense of nationhood instead of brotherhood. We at birth are not divided along political, racial, national lines. But when we start aging things become clear to us and all our ideologies modify or condition us and we tend to behave as if we are by birth different in terms of society, culture, economy, education, the idea of highbrows and lowbrows, whiteness and blackness and the like.

These are externals, veneers we keep on layering ourselves and once we remove these layers we are already naturally united.

We are by birth or by nature united the way deer and other wild animals or ants are.

Man invented religions, religious, political and social laws and principles that distanced us and divided us from one another in point of fact.

[MineralWater]

I think what unites humans, is that we are all connected to the earth, and that we should try to take care of it and each other.

[blazeofglory]

I think what unites humans, is that we are all connected to the earth, and that we should try to take care of it and each other.

This is a wonderful idea in point of fact and and taking care of the planet we will subsequently be taken care of. We forget that the planet earth is our real state. We are the earth and inseparable indeed from this planet.

Let us try to save this earth for ourselves and posterity but we are not doing this because we are \very self centered and do not show a little of sensibility and charity.

Let us keep the earth lively and in turn we will be lively.

[MineralWater]

This is a wonderful idea in point of fact and and taking care of the planet we will subsequently be taken care of. We forget that the planet earth is our real state. We are the earth and inseparable indeed from this planet.

Let us try to save this earth for ourselves and posterity but we are not doing this because we are \very self centered and do not show a little of sensibility and charity.

Let us keep the earth lively and in turn we will be lively.

You completely captured my thoughts.

[billl]

SGCS (Seond Generation Cognitive Science) informs me that objectivity is our shared subjectivity. That is to say that our individual experiences have great affect upon our thoughts, knowledge, and perceptions; these individual experiences make each of us a very unique creaure; however, like finger prints make each one distinctive they do have something very significant that is the same in all humans.

That which is the same in all individuals is how our cognition functions. We all process experience with the same processing system. It is this processing system that accentuates our commonness. It is this cognitive system that unites all humans.

coberst, I think I have maybe appreciated this thought, but wonder why you are of the opinion that this sort of "unity" would produce much useful in the way of morality or some other sense of healthy cultural development. The fact that we share the same sense organs, and perceptual processing algorithms, and that our higher mental functions owe a great deal to these processes pretty much just sets us down in the same "Kantian playing-field." That is, we humans see/experience reality in the same basic way (we don't have eagle-eyes, we perhaps place more importance on personal pleasure than does an ant, we tend to use some metaphor about "pushing an object" or something more than a fish would, etc.), and so, as far as crafting some sort of morality, this research just seems to show that we are all at the same starting point--the human vantage-point. Which is where we always were. I don't see how more info about these metaphors, or spreading the word about this model for cognitive function, would really create any kind of brotherhood. No more so than a look at DNA might, anyhow.

What I do think, however, is that this sort of research might improve our ability to teach, deceive, treat, manipulate, liberate, and enslave. So, yes, there will be a moral component to this research. But I think what should happen is that macro-level, natural human living (and a cautious humility) should inform how we use this knowledge. Our morality comes from our encounter with the world, and how we have evolved physically (and culturally) over time in our environment. Let us unite by looking at how our cultures can come to terms with the increased internet connectivity that has arisen in such a short time, and let us unite to resolve our environmental concerns. I don't see how SGCS discoveries about our cognitive building blocks, etc. would provide a better/healthier angle on things--but there might be some ways I can't imagine right now. In any case, I think we should be guided by our current social perspectives (and our efforts to resolve apparent conflicts, and a concern for the Rights of Man) more so than by those of the sages in labs pushing their way unevenly along the paths most easily revealed by their equipment. (Heroes that they are, in their own way :) )

Really, I am more interested in the insurance of individual development, in this age of mass media and increased connection via internet. Technological reductionism is taming the wild floods of information by filtering search results, advertising, etc. in ways we never before imagined--and the tech people are busy imagining much more work along these lines. I think variety of experience will probably be sacrificed to some degree in order to accommodate quantity of informational exposure, if these tech-based trends (rather than human-based trends) continue. It is a trend toward "unity" that I don't much like, when I consider the concentrated--and mostly hidden--forces/individuals driving it.

I am not so much interested in finding the answers to moral issues in over-simplicity or reductionism. I think we need to remember that the retention of variety is important, interesting, valuable--but at odds with technological and rule-based moves towards efficiency and ease of classification. Our differences are at least as important as our similarities. But perhaps I am over-emphasizing my perspective... There are two sides to the coin, of course. Knowing building blocks is important, and I am actually quite interested in that sort of thing--but just can't, in this case, see it contributing much towards unity among our culturally complex and individually varied species.

Coberst, I applaud your continual urging towards a greater curiosity, and attention to finding one's own way. SGCS and the myriad other fields of astounding technological development are bound to have enormous effects on all of us, but I really think that individuals operating in those fields are the ones most responsible for making these developments safe, understandable, and respectfully introduced into the greater population. Perhaps you would be a good advocate for the concerns of many others who, while finding their own way, do not become as familiar with these developments that you are obviously quite interested in.

And thanks as always for a thread that has produced many interesting responses. :) :thumbs_up

[coberst]

coberst, I think I have maybe appreciated this thought, but wonder why you are of the opinion that this sort of "unity" would produce much useful in the way of morality or some other sense of healthy cultural development.


Question--What is the practical difference between universally shared subjectivity and objectivity?

Answer—Objectivity, in the sense as a philosophical objectivist and the common sense view would see it, is truth out there in the world ready for us to perceive it. The SGCS view, which I agree is correct, is that we humans have a common way of structuring truth and as a result we can agree on the truth that we structure not because that truth is out there in the world but because we are confined to creating truth by our common way of structuring truth.

The best book for beginning to comprehend the SGCS view is “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson. This book has a very large bibliography citing the empirical research that supports their theory.

I think of the objectivist as being similiar to the drunk crawling around on his hands and knees under the street light. His sober fried asks him what he is doing. He replies that he is looking for his lost car keys. His friend notes that he was never under that street light and thus his lost keys could not be there. The drunk replies "this is the only place with light enough to see".

We may never find our keys even though we look in the proper places but the possibility increases if we look only where we might possibly have lost the keys even though there is little light there.

[billl]

The fact that we share the same sense organs, and perceptual processing algorithms, and that our higher mental functions owe a great deal to these processes pretty much just sets us down in the same "Kantian playing-field." That is, we humans see/experience reality in the same basic way (we don't have eagle-eyes, we perhaps place more importance on personal pleasure than does an ant, we tend to use some metaphor about "pushing an object" or something more than a fish would, etc.), and so, as far as crafting some sort of morality, this research just seems to show that we are all at the same starting point--the human vantage-point.

Again, I understand the point you are making about


we humans have a common way of structuring truth and as a result we can agree on the truth that we structure not because that truth is out there in the world but because we are confined to creating truth by our common way of structuring truth.

I just don't see the power to unite in there anywhere--besides the idea that, if we all agree on something, then we'd be united. Many people with enthusiastic opinions on a wide range of subjects have believed this throughout the ages.

Do you (or DiMasio or anybody) have any vision for how SGCS would unite people, apart from uniting us as a class of beings (much like DNA can do, or before that, the use of traits to classify species)? Do you envision some sort of Copernican Revolution, perhaps? Do you expect this research to unite everyone because of its explanatory power, rather than via some form of oppression or manipulation resulting from specific technological possibilities?

Your examples and metaphors are pointing at ways in which people might newly regard human cognition, how it developed, and how the nature of its development biases the way we perceive and think. I think our disunity is more about history, what we need, and what people are in the habit of doing. I've met people from many cultures and countries, and it is pretty obvious that people are similar once you get to know them, underneath all the cultural differences. Most people that aren't ready to recognize this aren't anywhere near ready for even the most convincing lectures about DNA or SGCS research.

[blazeofglory]

In fact the one single most noxious thing that has disunited and disgruntled us is avariciousness. This planet is limited by space and its productivity and holding capacity is too limited. And what is unlimited is our greed and covetousness to acquire more and more and to occupy more space. Everyone wants an empire of his or her own, but since their physical strength does not allow them to be so they look for slavery, and man stoops because he is too feeble to fight. Nietzsche spoke about slave morality when slaves use the tools of humility or humbleness.

Indeed our rectitude, altruism or the feeling that this planet is commonwealth can save us and ultimately unite us amidst all adversaries.

[caddy_caddy]

A strong, universal contempt for one another.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


:idea: It does, at least for a time, doesn't it:( Humans seem to have a very short attention span relating to others suffering and pain.
And those who suffer, well they tend to adapt unless they occasionally have decreased pain or the promise of improved circumstances. What do you think?:thumbs_up


I think It is more than a temporal adaptation. Shared ideas , ultimate goals , and the like unite us but do not blend us to become one. when I suffer like you suffer , I become you and you become me .

[blazeofglory]

What unites all of us? We are already united. At least by the planet earth. We are all rooted to the earth, that is, we share the same earth; we breathe the same air, we drink the same water; love, hatred, compassions, murder instincts, altruistic attributes characterize us, or the chemicals that have constructed us or we are all the offshoot of or the compound resulted from some chemical reactions.
Since we are not different at all, the problem lies in our inability to understand the chemistry of this truth

[B-Mental]

All of humanity aspires to respire....and to continue thus.

[Red-Headed]

Earwax?

[IceM]

What unites all of us? We are already united. At least by the planet earth. We are all rooted to the earth, that is, we share the same earth; we breathe the same air, we drink the same water; love, hatred, compassions, murder instincts, altruistic attributes characterize us, or the chemicals that have constructed us or we are all the offshoot of or the compound resulted from some chemical reactions.
Since we are not different at all, the problem lies in our inability to understand the chemistry of this truth

I'd argue the contrary.

Certainly, we're connected in chemical matters: we breathe oxygen, eat to stay alive, have blood pumping throughout our body, etc. But, I'd argue that's just about it.

You get the occasional "collaboration on Global Warming" news, the occasional military alliances (Axis vs Allies, although 60 yrs ago), but how else are we connected?

Look at wars throughout history: do those unite us? Do the felonies committed each day unite us? Our various political beliefs separate us. Our religious beliefs separate us. Our musical tastes separate us. Our aspirations in life separate us (all of these, to a degree).

While we are indeed united in our primal, instinctive qualities, it could be argued that our instincts is the only reason mankind is united.

[dfloyd]

Umbilical cords?

[gbrekken]

once did a paper on a similar subject-what unites us is common intention, inate, need to make connection, hence meaning etc. etc. etc. impossible without at least one of the five senses.

[Scheherazade85]

I was tempted to think of music. But in the same way that it tends to unite, it could also divide.

[Dori]

We are united in our striving to survive.

[Pryderi Agni]

We are united in our striving to survive.

If by this you're implying the struggle for existence, I think people with suicidal tendencies would pretty much like to disagree with you.

[IceM]

We could be united in merely our own existance.

Or, in theology. Even atheists have a belief; the lack of one.

[blazeofglory]

Understanding one another unites us more than anything in this world. How can we spur our understanding in this world of antagonism, hostility to one another rent with war and violence? Are we, Homo-sapiens capable of understanding at all? What helps trigger this understanding? This is possible only if we can imbibe sense of accountability. And if we abandon greed and remain focused on need and prepare for sharing this planet and the riches she impregnates. Regrettably mankind has not founded an institution till today works on indoctrinating people on sharing. I live in a city and there is a very big chasm between the haves and is boarding slums and shanties with the grassroots and next to that extends yards of temples and holy shrines. Big mansions are un-peopled. That means in big buildings people beget fewer babies than in slums and in slums where there is paucity of space but mothers their birth bigger numbers of babies. This is anomaly and incongruity. And there big temples, shrines with big rooms and wherein statues of stones that can weather all seasons are housed and at the sides of the temples people sleep in the bare-ground in winters with no cover or roofs above their heads. Imagine then what unites mankind?

[DanielBenoit]

We are all pushing rocks up a hill.

[DanielBenoit]

If by this you're implying the struggle for existence, I think people with suicidal tendencies would pretty much like to disagree with you.

The question of suicide comes in when the insticts we have for survival paradoxically turn against our life-system. Things such as depression, trauma, sickness, etc. (i.e. things that could lead to suicide) ingnite our momentary instincts for survival. When the pain is too much, our instincts, which are impulsive and cannot relate in the long term, search for a quick solution. In the end, the struggle for existence is not the struggle for life itself, but a struggle for a lack momentary pain.

Just as he flinch at the prick of a needle, we are in fear when a gun is at our head, not because we'll die (the thought of death does not sink immedietley, and if it is self-inflicted, fear of death is obviously lacking), but because we fear that it might hurt, even if it may only be momentary.

[Anna_MAlkovych]

Stupidity. This the most common feature of homo sapiens.

[IceM]

Updating my response to this question.

What unites all of humanity is that we have all fallen short of the glory of God; we have all sinned and are in need of a savior, and that savior is Jesus Christ, the only son of God, who died on the cross and was raised from the grave. We are to turn to him in faith and in repentance of our sins.

[NikolaiI]

Fear of strangers.

Love of baby seals.
:)