I understand the dynamics of game theory, nash equilibrium etc, but I am thinking of the altruistic cultural development model where how I live might be more important than whether I live.  Read or listen to MLK Jr's speech the night before he was killed for some insight into the realm I am thinking about.

Here are the last few lines: 

Now, it doesn't matter, now. It really doesn't matter what happens now. I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us. The pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night."

And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now,  because I've been to the mountaintop.

And I don't mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

And so I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!

Say Amen, somebody.

"We have to start with the idea of a peaceful world, a world where conflict could and would be handled in a peaceful way, no coercion, no force."

You're saying this in a visionary sense, correct?  Otherwise, I think we have to start with what we've got.  In that light then your transcendent model has to out succeed other models in order to be human existence.  Unless, of course, you consider it human destiny.  As I don't partake in religious faith I don't buy a destiny based model so I fall back on the tried and true method of out breeding the competition (practiced by all "successful" theologies).

"I don't buy the idea that because things have always been a certain way that change is not possible.  Change is possible, it may even be essential and necessary."

I agree, lest the human experiment come to a crashing halt (barring unforseen natural extinction disasters, of course).  There is a point in the doctrine of change that I do get caught up in with my fellow liberals on a regular basis, though, and that's that I firmly believe that change requires a recognition of and deference to what preceeded it.  This is why I think outrage over Abu Gharib, Guantanimo, Bagram and their like is wasted energy.  We should know by now that something like this would happen.  I think before a people ever decide to war they should be faced with the evidence of past war attrocities knowing that it's a given that future attrocities will occur when people are placed in positions of violence.  I long for the day when pre-war dialogue involves non-stop propaganda showing Vietnam era attrocities, photos from Guantanamo,  Hiroshima shadows, etc., etc., etc.  I think if people are actually faced with the results of violence, instead of trying to clean it up, then your transendence on a social scale may come much more quickly.  I guess my point is that change never starts with a thought in a vacuum, change starts with everything else that came before.

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer. If you're a pretender, come sit by my fire, for we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!"