> In the context of history, this assumption is unfounded. When there is no difference between life and death, may as well have some fun. But freedom bring prosperity, and prosperity starts a chain reaction ending with weakness. > In the absence of a threat, one will be created or found so the eternal process of natural selection can continue, and the race can evolve through the elimination of its weaker elements and proliferation of its stronger. People aren't monkeys, we are tricky monkeys with unhealthy absolutist tendencies. Why waste endless resources on competing when you can just permanently eliminate your competition? And when your competition is your own tribe, well. > In the bigger picture, the stronger element of humanity will be the group that finally figures out that assimilative imperialism is a self-destructive behaviour. They will destroy themselves, like everyone else does. Close-mindedness is death. Nature creates races by setting clear rules. Its rules decide which trait means life or death. You have to follow its ways, because going against Nature will only bring you death. The problem is, no matter what system you create, with enough prosperity, people will just stop caring about it. Unless you make a system that doesn't have to rely on people somehow. Immortality may change this situation, but who knows in what direction.