As much as I appreciate using precise language, I had to look this one up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere I g

As much as I appreciate using precise language, I had to look this one up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere I guess the use of the term instead of a more common descriptor like "society" implies a religious or at least spiritualist world view, but the way you're using it implies the attacks stemming from an unspecified "other", which doesn't quite fit at least from a cursory look at the philosophy behind it. My criticism would be that much like Thatcher said though in a very different sense: there is no such thing as society, there are just individuals. Or more specifically: there's no such thing as a unified whole of society or humanity across history, there are actors with different interests and different levels of influence and each actor may consist of more than one person and each person may be part of more than one actor. The assumption that debate between political opposites on shared interests must bring them closer presupposes that both sides want to be closer and that the purpose of the debate is to find truth rather than to loop in the audience to join your side.