Questions for American Atheists

[Reforged]

To date there has been no form of government created capable of functioning properly and caring for its people while accounting for mankinds selfish nature. Capitalism, unfortunately, reflects humanities base nature which is why it has been so widely adopted. Its all about gaining more than your fellow man, increasing your station and steadily consuming more and more. It is of course unsustainable and we all know it. Communism works in theory except that it fails to take into account human nature which results in a select few being far more "equal" than others. Ancient Greece came fairly close to what I would consider perfect democracy. The community as a whole voted on bills and motions, not representitives. However, this would require everyone to be very well informed and in a modern day setting where media influence is as powerful as it is biased I am uncertain if it would not simply shift the reins more firmly into the grasp of the corrupt.
Any system created will always fall prey to the natures of those who create them. I therefore conclude that inorder to create a system that works we would need to change human nature to be intelligent, inquisitive and benevolent... which is unlikely to happen as such people are rare and would not be able to pass on their genes and memes more than the vast majority who, and lets be fair to them, are complete fucking morons.

Communists took over Europe, and if it wasn't for few select events they might have run the world. They killed Hitler, take a second look at the facts and DO NOT get suckered into the modern McCarthyist propaganda

......and what's all this changing human nature crap? Sounds like eugenics...........

Read what I said about communism again. I wasn't saying it was good or bad, I was stating a fact that human nature twists it. It was good in theory because it was a good system, humans don't do equality though. Its not how we've evolved, its not how we've survived. We are predisposed to attempt to out do each other, this is no longer a sufficent means of survival.

Eugenics would certainly be a means, yes. Of course ever since Hitler looked it up in a dictionary, decided he didn't like that definition and created his own people have been less than receptive towards it. I presume thats the light you're casting it in.

This wasn't what I was suggesting but at the end of the day, what would be wrong with it? So you've altered a few chromosomes to make your child smarter, so what? Now you've altered a few more to make him kinder and a few others to safe-guard against genetic diseases and defects. Perhaps make him more athletic too.
At what point is any of this a bad thing?