i find it pretty inarguable that greed in any form is nothing but detrimental to life, both human and otherwise. but i don't understand where it came from. being the only species that actually has the intellect to understand interdependance, the will to adhere to it, we are the only species to be conciously ignorant of it. and it is a very concious ignorance. i'm sure i want as much as anyone else, nice clothes, big tvs, to sit around playing games all day, lounging in swimming pools and what not, and am already overly-blessed with luxury, but i also have the knowledge that that desire serves me absolutely no good, that it in no way serves any purpose in life but distraction and self-destruction, and more likely than not opportunity born from the labour and misfortune of others. then it extends to the global scale. still i can manage at times to not be ignorant of the same self/species-destruction.
if i own all the recources then others are dependant on me, i have power over them, others will suffer for my gain and i will profit and own...things. it takes a great awareness to be able to ackowledge this, its a product of fantastic intellect and understanding so why is the corresponding broader viewing intellect so prolifically absent. with this frame of mind will always come an ultimate instability. is the presence of malicious intent, of greed, of willful power over others, the lack of honest foresight a sign of primitive intelligence or just some evolutionary hiccup that developed with the other facets of human thought.
i'm probably not making sense....lets say the h-bomb, or a-bomb, or other such wonderful inventions, obviously it takes a great mind, or minds to develop these highly complex weapons and to understand the science behind them. where in this great understanding is the neglect of the truthful and ultimate consequence, beyond that of the immediate death and enforced peace. and no, i don't see concepts such as mutually assured destruction as being products of great reason. its excuse in the absence of reason. similarly most actions under "national security" have little to do with anything even vaguely resembling the definition of security. obviously the same principle is applied to all those other examples of advanced thought and civilisation, corporate funded dictatorships, the west's helpful democratisation of the rest of the world, the global transfer of resources and labour....blah blah blah....
though (on my good days) i'm ever hopeful of humanity evolving to something more than sometimes beautiful, i'd be equally acceptant whenever all those soldiers and governments and businessmen and terrorists blow us all up and perhaps life can have another go at evolving into something deserving of understanding.