"Human society can't be engineered, it's a living mechanism"
These aren't exclusive. Certainly there are limits, but human society is engineered every day on many scales and the effects are all around you. Just look at the the differences in culture between a new tech startup and IBM. Aren't these human societies? For a larger scale, compare North Korea and Iceland.
"...in the past millennia we've been through pretty much all we could"
No, we've been through all that we've been through. Before democracy, there was no such thing and your reasoning would have deemed it impossible to live under any system but autocratic despotism. Even though we have a long way to go, humanity has created political innovation for its entire existence, and the rate of this innovation has continually accelerated. Why would this change?
I believe it comes down to culture. If the members of a society are instilled strongly enough with the right values, it isn't necessary for a central body to enforce these values. It would actually be counterproductive. For companies, these values relate to ingenuity, productivity, cooperation, ethics. For countries, the same apply, but replacing a central legal authority also requires strong judicial values. These already exist to an extent. Try punching an old lady on a crowded city street and see what happens to you--it won't matter whether there are police around.
Compassion and charity are also necessary. Luckily, in spite of the bad news we see constantly, these values are also quite pervasive in the world. Pervasive enough? I'm not sure. But I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that humanity could make great strides in improving its political systems, and perhaps reach a point that would look utopian to our present day, even if it takes a hell of a long time to get there.
I meant that we've been through most varieties we could considering the environment so far. Of course new forms of societies will appear as the environments (technological, sociological, environmental, biological etc) change.
My whole point was that it's impossible to create a "frozen", immutable form of society. There is no ideal form, it's always a compromise of some sort, and it always changes.
These aren't exclusive. Certainly there are limits, but human society is engineered every day on many scales and the effects are all around you. Just look at the the differences in culture between a new tech startup and IBM. Aren't these human societies? For a larger scale, compare North Korea and Iceland.
"...in the past millennia we've been through pretty much all we could"
No, we've been through all that we've been through. Before democracy, there was no such thing and your reasoning would have deemed it impossible to live under any system but autocratic despotism. Even though we have a long way to go, humanity has created political innovation for its entire existence, and the rate of this innovation has continually accelerated. Why would this change?
I believe it comes down to culture. If the members of a society are instilled strongly enough with the right values, it isn't necessary for a central body to enforce these values. It would actually be counterproductive. For companies, these values relate to ingenuity, productivity, cooperation, ethics. For countries, the same apply, but replacing a central legal authority also requires strong judicial values. These already exist to an extent. Try punching an old lady on a crowded city street and see what happens to you--it won't matter whether there are police around.
Compassion and charity are also necessary. Luckily, in spite of the bad news we see constantly, these values are also quite pervasive in the world. Pervasive enough? I'm not sure. But I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that humanity could make great strides in improving its political systems, and perhaps reach a point that would look utopian to our present day, even if it takes a hell of a long time to get there.