Idealists have had these goals for millennia. Plato even suggested an organization to accomplish them. You say "should" frequently, but suggest no means to accomplish. I agree with your last suggestion that nature will be the judge. My paper suggest the "how" to accomplish your goals by using nature.
I agree balance is a noble goal and is enforced by nature. Out of balance systems will be selected against. But this is not a peaceful process. Its achievement has often been through war and starvation (when nature changes climate) and the destruction of the good with the bad.
A closed thermodynamic system tends toward sameness as a form of equilibrium. Production of work requires energy difference in the system. The Earth has the Sun. This too will become unable to produce work (in millennia). The universe in the popular model is adiabatic. It too will become unable to produce work. We can only hope the reality is different for our progeny's sake.
Do you suggest balance by means of everybody adopting the same morals? Nature has selected against sameness and the quest for sameness in societies. If balance is to be achieved by different groups, how is war to be avoided? History has shown war is the arbitrator of last resort if starvation and failure to adjust to climate change fails.
The use and disuse theory is one reason technology has developed - to be more effective in war. So the UN attempted to discourage nuclear weapons. The result has been the opposite of that intention. The UN acted to encourage peace (meaning not violent conflict). The effect has been the opposite. But all is not lost. The advance of technology has allowed larger groups and mankind reorganized its political structures. Non-violent conflict occurs in the larger groups. But it seems each of these groups (nations) behaves as spoiled brats and tends to violent, intolerant conflict. Lager groups mean large destructive power and larger disasters when trying to deal with natural disasters. Paradoxically, larger groups are required to develop technology.
Certainly, global warming is producing a great stress on humanity. How do you propose we achieve your "should" goal? History seems to suggest the idealistic "should" has no means. Like the UN, the result will be the opposite of the intention. You have noted a few examples.
"All forms of terrorists...should be brought to order or judgment at once!" Who can disagree? "How?" is the question of the day. The UN and US have tried only to resort to war and great loss of life at an expense that is proving too great to bear.
(i) Obey natural law. Nature will see to it. But nature's methods are not pretty. Humans have shown a penchant for disobeying natural law only to have nature destroy them. But we don't know nature's law. Maybe what is happening is human societies through their morals are attempting to find natural law but get it wrong. Nature destroys the good with the bad. Our learning is very slow. So, again How do you suggest we "... respect the law of nature..." that we may not know?
(ii) How should we steer to a better world by allowing the force applied to do it. If the force applied does not steer us to a better world, then what? How do we know the difference?
(iii) How are we going to stop natural disasters?
The dream of a better world is still an idealistic dream. The means to achieve it are being misdirected as history has shown. I think this is true because the methods of the dream are contrary to nature. I agree, nature will catch-up with the tyrant.
I think you have outlined some of the problem. I think I outlined a possible solution.
