When I said fundamentally flawed, I meant flawed from a design standpoint as opposed to an implementation standpoint.

"Would you classify that as a launch problem or a design problem?" -- Chris Knight, "Real Genius"

If you design a screwdriver to hammer a nail, the best implementation in the world will still fall short. You need to design a hammer. What we have designed as government, academia, and business are not suitable for human needs for structure, experience transfer, and meaningful ways of life.

Religion, also fundamentally flawed for failing to deal with human needs to cope with "spirituality", or wonder, awe, and the unknown.

Now, as for social institutions that aren't flawed from a design standpoint, you wanted one? Pick which one you agree with from among these five:

1. Reciprocity
2. Language and storytelling
3. Technology
4. Teamwork
5. Rearing of our young

Each one of these is a necessary institutional part of all human societies, and all problems resulting from engaging them are implementation problems. Eating, not specifically a social institution, is also not a flawed design for ingesting nutrients and energy, but the implementation is flawed when we eat HFCS and other processed crap, or eat too much and become overweight.

I used to lean heavily toward the side of thinking that humans are inherently flawed. But then I realized that to say humans are inherently flawed, is to say that life is inherently flawed, which is to say that the laws of reality are inherently flawed. If we are inherently flawed, then everything is inherently flawed. We didn't spring forth here from another dimension, we are a product of this reality.

It could instead be that our collective understandings and assumptions need further tweaking and percolation. Just saying.

So Mom was wrong when she said nobody is perfect, i.e. flawless.

It's actually an interesting philosophical position, sort of "the best of all possible worlds" idea.
I have my problems with it, but it's a hell of a sight better than some of the misanthropic stuff I see around here! :-)

RC

Thanks. We're not on the same page yet, but maybe we're standing in the same library.

This position is based on the idea that billions of years ago, life on Earth was all single-celled, but eventually became multicellular. At one point in the evolution of life, it was unmanageably complex to coordinate multiple cells toward sustainable action. Today, all the life we can readily see with the naked eye, including ourselves, are manageably complex colonies of billions to trillions of individual living cells.

From our experience, the only sustainable social arrangements for human societies are tribal. But larger-scale sustainable societies could be possible if the right social building blocks were used.

The ideas and experience we used in our very first attempt at building a large society, which were all we knew how to do at the time, resulted in flawed designs for social structure (government and law), and spirituality (religion). Later came educational systems and industry, both, essentially, first attempts at solving problems of experience transfer and physical resource support.

How many times in human history have we attempted to solve a problem at any scale, from small to large, and gotten it right on the first try? As small examples, what's the version number of the operating system you're using right now? How often do you correct typos or re-word your posts?

We have been chiseling away at the square, not round, stone wheels of government, industry, and education, trying to make them go under water, fly, and clean our windows. They aren't designed to work that way, and they're not even very suitable for what we had intended hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Yes, you can call the stone wheels an "airplane" and attach a jet engine to it and make it fly. And this is where most of the energy waste goes, forcing more poor societal designs into a poorly understood society. The problems aren't fast cars, it's why we need speed. It's not iPods, it's why we continually need distraction. It's not crime, it's why people for thousands of years have been continually and repeatedly forced into self-destructive behaviors.

It's a lack of appropriate options, and a lack of appropriate understanding. It's these options and understandings that at one end help bind and at the other help enable a society.

...then everything is inherently flawed.

Maybe Godel Incompleteness Theorems fit here...