People are the way that they are. It doesn't mean they cannot be more. The constraints of physical scarcity make us less (good/kind/moral) than we otherwise mig

People are the way that they are. It doesn't mean they cannot be more. The constraints of physical scarcity make us less (good/kind/moral) than we otherwise might be. My statement was a simple description of the behaviour of individuals and states, and how each acts as their own agent. Some are more kind and selfless, and will go with less so that those around them can be lifted up, many others aren't so thoughtful. What do we do when an overwhelming majority of people and nations act primarily in their own interests first, even to the overwhelming detriment of those around them? That you'd rather retreat into invective rather than critique my statements is telling. That you decided to Darwin the exchange is just a bit sad. Certainly what I am saying is somewhat bleak, I am a pessimist, but whilst bleak I do not think it an unrealistic portrayal of human behaviour. If it is, then perhaps I am too easily given over to misanthropy. There are those wonderful moments where we rise above self interest and insensibility, I love it when that happens. I whole-heartily encourage people to pursue these outcomes, but the reason that states spy on each other is a realistic expectation that you cannot expect others to behave in a way that will not be detrimental to you, or your peoples interests. It should also be noted that spying is not a natural by-product of war, but perhaps a better alternative. Tact and guile over brute force is preferable, honesty and jolly co-operation is of course best. ps. You haven't said what you're prepared to give up so that we can curtail the rate of progress to a more sensible pace, and therefore not to pursue our interests so aggressively.