Will Humanity fall from the position of a predominant life form of the earth within 500 years

"It seems to diminish logic and reason all too often for it's better." You cannot diminish logic; you may use its functions poorly however. If it is for "its better" then it cannot be negative. ;) "By doing this humans take in account only how their lives would be affected by such actions at the very moment of thought." Some people are impulsive; society on the whole however, is not based on the whims of any one individual. "Even though humans realize this as truth this is still practiced and is considered human nature." Humanity does not have a single coherent philosophy. People employ rational skills at differing levels, selfishness is not innately a negative act and altruism can certainly be detrimental in situations. "We are governed in a way which is barbaric as ideology of any orthodox rule has been. Our Governments ( i am talking about every "seprate" government in our little blue earth)is run through the power of the all mighty dallor." Yes, societies are on the whole capitalist in nature, though some exist (some enforced) that strive to exist solely on their own merits. North Korea for example has generally remained secular (to its populaces detriment) with major diplomatic ties only with China. Why capitalism is a negative force you will have to explain in detail, because capitalism as a force is what has given you the tools to post this debate. Without such there would be no computer for you to type, this site would arguably not exist (note the advertising by any chance?), the availability of the internet to access this site etc. Capitalism is what has fuelled enterprise. It is a powerful motivator for human endeavour. It aids in the development of new technology, it is the force by which research can be accomplished, and it provides the infrastructure that allows you an education, the choice of your career (or none). Capitalism is what allows individuals in society choice and freedom; it does not act against it. Government supported monopolies may, but that is not a facet of capitalism itself. "There is no actual freedom of choice for the people of this world. There is only an allusion, this propaganda is run only by the rich of this world. This in it's self is slavery and our masters are dictators without doubt." What freedom do you speak of? Perhaps the freedom to travel around the world fuelled by a system whereby an airport is a profitably run enterprise which supports that freedom to travel. Perhaps you mean freedom of choice. Capitalism is what drives diversity of jobs. Infrastructures, supply and demand, are all facets of capitalism that encourage freedom at an individual level. "The politicians the "peace keepers" have close to no say in all the major decisions that take part on our earth. Money can overpower anything in it's decision it effects everything from scientific exploration to construction of the order of thought and believes of our public." Who then is making the decisions? Someone needs to be. Capitalism on its own cannot elect an official. If the representative of the people is not doing what the people require then democratic processes supports their removal. It is the choice of the individual as to whether they support any elected official. It is up to the individual to voice any protest, whether this is at the ballot or otherwise. Unpopular policies make for unpopular candidates. You cannot blame the candidate if they are elected via a democratic process. That is the voter's responsibility. Those countries where democratic processes do not occur, on the majority are not globally influential. Russia and China would be the two exceptions that spring to mind, but neither of these threatens humanity as a whole. China wants to be accepted, to be a world player and it is slowly introducing democratic processes to this end. "To observe how this effects our debate we will establish that for a society to succeed in scientific achievements and constructing a promising future it must have as many of its peoples with similar status and control of any situation as possible." Our society has succeeded so far without the need for socialism. People are not equal, that is a basic truth. There are those of varying intellect and ability and to enforce those more able to exist at the less able level is anathema to advancement and prosperity. To enforce the norm, mass conformity must be an ideal. You remove any necessity for human endeavour and personal freedom. If you advocate complete democracy, i.e. public vote for all decisions, then that is purely unwieldy. Governments cannot run if the populace vote is required for every decision. That is why we elect representatives. Absolutely the government should be removed as a controlling force behind the economy. That is not its responsibility. So will humanity survive in 500 years? I would argue yes, purely because survival is a prime motivator. Yes war is a facet of human behaviour, but so is the capacity for advancement, rational thought, an innate urge to strive and better the current situation. We research heavily into health and medicine, we like being alive as a species. The fact we still throw probes into the depths of our solar system, point giant telescopes into the depths of space, show we have not lost the desire for knowledge, truth, an urge to discover and move forward as a species.