Saltpetre wrote: “Would all come crashing down if people would just accept that it is general human nature to be caring, empathic and fundamentally good?”

It would not all come crashing down, but I do not think it is warranted to assume ‘general human nature to be caring, empathic and fundamentally good’. What is your evidence for that assumption?

What evidence there is that human nature is very changeable and adapts to the circumstances. Under Hitler and the Nazis Germany was a totalitarian state that exterminated people and sent dissenters to concentration camps or worse. Present day Germany is one of the most democratic countries on earth and invited in refugees of a different culture.

Colin Turnbull has documented how the Ik changed from a communal society to an individualistic culture under pressure of reduced resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_people

Saltpetre also wrote: “Could humanity remain equally stable and even become more stable and considerate of one another if religion and superstition could be retained but without any illusions of humankind being 'special', being a product of some magical mysterious 'plan'?”

Perhaps humanity might be better off without religion and superstition.

Saltpetre also wrote: Animals in nature do what they need to survive, but Man does not stop short of killing his own kind in pursuit of a grandiose vision of 'survival'.

Ant hills war on other ant hills.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/

Groups of Chimps war on other groups of chimps.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=chimpanzee+warfare&cvid=7701f86de5704186b965c0058fea06e2&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531

As far as constraining human population we know what is required -
education for women, fairer distribution of resources, sex education, abortion on demand, free access to contraceptives, promotion of sex for recreation and bonding rather than for reproduction.

"Would all come crashing down if people would just accept that it is general human nature to be caring, empathic and fundamentally good?"

that is not the world I observe.

yes, empathy and caring traits are admirable, but there are a whole lot of other behaviours that also exist in this very competitive world where humans are the dominant species.

I am just fortunate to be an Australian, albeit my experience may be different from others.

For all of the problems of the world, I would rather be here than most other places.

Interesting extracts from David F's link...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/

When It Comes to Waging War, Ants and Humans Have a Lot in Common

In both humans and social insects, the capacity to engage in total war seems to hinge on population numbers

The flip side is that the larger the group, the more diverse — and extreme — the aggressive responses to outsiders can be. When considering the often-striking similarities between humans and social insects, one fascinating parallel is the existence of warfare in both.

As human societies grew, so did the forms of aggression open to them, and their scale and intensity.

One likely reason for the possibility of warfare in large societies, among both ants and humans, is simple economics. Big communities are more productive per capita: fewer resources are required to feed and house each individual. The outcome is a reserve labor force that can be quickly deployed as needed —in ants, typically as soldiers. Fortunately, our nations can make choices not open to insects by investing excess labor not just in armies but in a host of other areas, among them entertainment, the arts, and sciences.

Rather than hiding behind stones like Ecuadorian ants, people can also choose to develop alliances among societies of their kind, something ants find impossible. It’s in the pursuit of peace that the brainpower of humans shows our species at its most impressive.

“The Human Swarm: How Our Societies Arise, Thrive, and Fall,”

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Swarm-Societies-Arise-Thrive/dp/0465055680

Does anybody know why the Flores Island 'hobbit' is small?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45049024

Why are island animals often small?

Understanding the circumstances that produced people with short stature on Flores may also help to explain why normally large animals tend to become small on islands.

The most popular theory is that animals evolve smaller body size in circumstances where the environment or diet is poor over many generations. This may be because smaller individuals are at an advantage because of lower energy needs.

This current study seems to confirm these findings.

"Flores is a magical place where things go and get small," said geneticist Prof Joshua Akey at Princeton University.

Dr Tucci added: "In geographically diverse and environmentally extreme regions, a gene called FADS seems to act like a 'toggle-switch' in helping animals switch to between largely animal or plant-based diets."

Similar changes in FADS genes have been found in Bronze age individuals, as people increasingly began to sustain themselves on plant-based diets from farming vegetables and grains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Why is the Flores Island 'hobbit' small? Because it was 'caught short'?

Ok now, so human nature is 'mixed' and shortage of means and necessities will often bring out the worst of human nature, but my observation has been that given reasonable opportunity people are more inclined to be cooperative rather than to be isolationist or aggressive.
Competitiveness need not be essential, or even preferable.

Some of course are sociopaths or psychopaths, paranoid or psychotic - Nature? Nurture?
Exceptions do NOT make the rule.

Has it not been amply demonstrated that cooperative societies fare better than combative ones or those ruled by tyrants or despots?
Exodus?

Anyway, have it your own way, golden civilizations have come and gone, and so it may always be.
It's just a pity that in spite of espoused piety, or even of honest reflection, the masses may often be prone to be misled by charismatic or powerful personalities concealing vested self-serving interests.

Hassie, you have fished, and many people like to fish, but if it were not for limits on commercial exploitation you and so many others would find the cupboard bare.
And, what of pollution? Acidification? Exotic viruses or parasites?
Anyway, don't worry, you'll be alright, mate, the world will go on spinning.

Oz could make far better use of its great land mass - by development of opportunity instead of overworking already developed farmland and then moving on to clearing remaining forests. Bradfield scheme(s)?
By so doing our carbon footprint could be totally negated (including in relation to coal and gas exports), but vision fails, and biodiversity suffers.

Flood and drought mitigation and security - need not be 'scotch mist'.

But, not to worry, just aim for the Delta Quadrant, Scottie!
Or, the yellow star on the left.

Each to his own, ye reap what ye sow.