Be sure not to get behaviour mixed up with inherant nature. We could change, we could stop. But the effort required to overcome such endowed instincts would be prohibitive if applying the change to the entire human race. We were never designed to become a global civilization as large as the current one, nor to cope with the amount of technology we can utilize today. That's where the problems start to crop up.

(Inherant nature always determines the behavior and are closely related, that's why I mixed them up. Anyway, thanks for making me see the difference)

Then why the heck are we trying to do it? If creating a global civilization is pointless, why we still move mountains for it?

If this task has any kind of sense, does it exist any way to solve such problems?

Let me add, I believe moral education based on a justified, objective view of reality would help to get over the selfishness. Not imposing it: teaching it. We must form persons. People for the people.

Because humanity doesn't make decisions as a collective, as much as I would like it to, it doesn't. We are merely individuals in greater machine, individuals don't make decisions that can alter civilizations.

I don't have an answer for that.

Moral education? Yes, that would be ideal. However, it would compromise those in power, in many ways. That is another discussion though.

If we don't make decisions as a collective is because we, individually have our own interests. And unless they're directed to the same object, the same purpose; it's very likely not to get any collective agreement. Compare this to having a large amount of compasses, all pointing to a different place. You've got to give them a North if you want them to point to the same direction.

The problem is to find the real-life simile to that. What could it be?

I think, brainwashing is an option, but the worst of them because we harm human freedom by imposing what we think to any other idea. Another option would be, diffusion of information via education or the media; like printing a book exposing such moral education,... but it would be a too innocent thought, to believe that could change the world.

Anyway, if we want those compasses to point to the same place, we've got to have a good reason for doing so. What would we want to achieve with such accomplishment?

I think progress for the sake of progress is meaningless.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. I truly can't think of any mutual goal that every member of the human race has that would drive the change we need.

For the greater good. None of us have the resources to initiate such a program anyway. Media and published material would be too subtle to induce change. Although, if you can get strong moral education throughout utilized to change the behaviour of an upcoming generation then you might be on to something. We would still need to supress our well stuck nature, or at least the more negative aspects of it such as imperialism. Damn, I feel like I'm sitting around trying to exploit God's work.

To make the world a better place, there are a thousand reasons to make the world a better place than what it is today.

Progress for the sake of progress is meaningless. But people want immortality in invention, progress is the result.

I have a goal for humanity, provide or at least guarantee without excessive efforts the basics such as food, housing and health care to every single human being.

We've been left on this planet to make something of it. The what will determine who we are.

The greatest danger of such moral education though, something I completely fear, is that we might be imposing a flawful, wrong system; or something we consider right for us, yet harms anybody else. Hence why I put emphasis on the "objective" view of reality, so we by common sense and consensus decide that's something obviously correct. Just like mathematic truths are (2 and 2 is always 4, no matter what, when or how).

Also, making this world a better place is too easy, but getting into detail is way much more complicated. Just like people said "I want to go to the Moon", but have no actual plans to do so. We have to build a staircase to our highest thoughts; in which each step is a reachable goal that makes us be closer to the final one.

(It's curious how we want to fix the progress we've done so far with more progress.)

Finally, we have to know well what we wish, and if it is a worthy or good purpose. Immortality is arrogance over death, personally I don't like that one. I'd rather work on making my little stay on this place, and the other's too, less bitter.

I wish I wasn't a cynic.

Your logic is sound.

Every time you drop down a category 100 more pop up, and then 1000. So on and so on. It's like a pyramid. The goal being at the top. With the way forward to that goal occupying each step underneath.

Well, people have a desire to see their name carved out in history. For example, Gause's competitive exclusion principle. He discovered this ecological phenomena. It advanced understanding, thus progress. But what he gained from this was immortality. His name carved in history forever.

The problem with theoretical-practical land. On theoretical land everything can be whatever you want it to be. On practical land, things react in a certain way; and what is worse, they react making another 582 more things move with it. Everything, even in the subtlest aspects, is related.

So when you want to reach an ambitious goal, you have to take in count zillions of factors before acting. Most of them, human factors.

But it's not impossible though; we just need a method and patience to follow it to the end. Just like, following the algorithm of division you can divide large numbers. Though it can be annoying to make a huge division, it wouldn't be difficult as long as you keep the simple algorithm in your head.

So we need a method, a simple instruction to make this race to that goal possible. I (although I still doubt of it) consider that the Golden Rule is a good method: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

However, I still have a question: is arrogance an actual goal? Be the best, live forever, stay on the top of the hill,... Should we permit such dreams of greatness?

Mmmh. This certainly is a good way forward. Although, I see no way to set it in motion, or at least to the extent that will benefit all of humanity and the biosphere.

Now, to your question. I believe an extremely large portion of the drive for progress can be related to dreams of being the best. Each person doing their best to become the best. Some succeed, figures such as Einstien and a big one of politics could be Vladimir Lenin. You see, "all glory is fleeting". But this means nothing to the human ego. The drive to be great will always be there and as long as it is progress will never die.

Should we permit greatness? I don't know whether we could ever stop it. When you're talking about human nature this one goes right to the heart. To dig out would require immense skill and wisdom.

Now I think that's enough philosophy for me for the night. I'm GMT +12 so I better head off to bed.

I think showing humbleness in the previously mentioned moral education, as well the fact that, as you said, "all glory is fleeting". Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.

We should also question if arrogance comes actually from human nature or if it's rather something our society created. If not, we should ask whether this society increases the wish of being on the top (just think on the impact media has, and how it shows successful people with loads of money, chicks, ten Ferrari cars,...).

I hope we could learn to be part of, be with our surroundings (societal, ecological and biological); not over them.

Anyway, I'd better let you sleep.

I don't consider any argument based on 'playing 'god'', because it relies on mythology.

On the other hand, manipulating the environment to benefit us... I don't really see anything wrong with, even the Na'vi do it. The only question is how far things should be taken, particularly in terms of high risk.

I said in other replies, that of course manipulating and using what we've been given for our own purposes is not bad; but we are responsible of what we make of it. And this means to fix everything we've done wrong so we can restore the balance and not be just a destroyer.

Also, we should be careful about what we experiment with or will to do; because some can have lethal consequences if we don't know them at length or make a subtle mistake.

And let me add, we should stop when the decisions we make produce more harm than benefits.

As I've been reading over all the reflections here, it makes one question, If there was a guidance or compilation, drawing together perhaps from all the worlds most spiritual and sacred mystism and traditions into one source, would we see it or seek to see it?

Having to admit as part of this generation, Religion has become something distasteful, constricting by all its limitations bound up in laws and ordiances that go against the longing to be free by human nature. I mean our collective egos are quite entrenched in our own knownings and we uphold them as the pinnical of understanding. I don't know about others but I know for me I'll argue with fierce debate to put forth my own perspectives even when its self-evident the flaws are gaping.

But if we are longing for a collective harmony, might this not be something we'd have to consider, and if we desired strong enough would we be willing to empty our cups to replenish it with something more potent for a higher purpose? Would we be willing to make some sacrifices now in our own purposes for the benifit, as others have pointed out, for all those beings great and small, and future generations?

man is not supposed to play god, and it is truly sad that we are...

The problem here is that civilization only largely judges the benefits and harm in a financial sense. Humanitarian and environmental factors are often overlooked.