So, you think this is unrelated to human activities?

Are those articles suggesting how to fix capitalism or are they actually suggesting eliminating private ownership of the means of production? There are numerous example of the latter being crushed by, e.g. the CIA among others, for around a century. As for how they are marginalized, I'd challenge you to name a single instance of a capitalist state becoming anything else. There have been a few, e.g. China, USSR, PRK, Cuba, etc. which became state capitalism, but that's still a form of capitalism. The anarcho-syndaclists in Spain tried, but they were crushed by the state.

Private property is inextricably linked with capitalism. If there is no private property there can be no private ownership of the means of production, hence no capitalism. Conversely, within capitalism there is private ownership of the means of production hence there can be no private property, only personal property.

Criticizing such details are not the same as criticizing the system itself. Preferring one implementation of capitalism over another isn't a criticism of capitalism. Similarly, espousing one political party over another isn't criticism of democracy.

If you suggest eliminating private property to mitigate certain ills engendered by capitalism, or express another view that is truly antithetical to capitalism then you will find yourself marginalized to the point you cannot influence the system.

This is true of any political system. You are not allowed to criticize what the system claims to be. For state capitalist nations like China or the former USSR which claim to be communist you are unable to criticize communism. In an oligarchy like America which claims to be a democracy you are unable to criticize democracy. They differ in the means by which they marginalize dissidents but in either case you are rendered unable to threaten the presiding political order.

This is true of capitalist economic systems and democratic political systems. The USSR was not unusual in eliminating heterodox views, not that it was ever communist in more than name.

> If we have all eternity, would we have the drive to keep improving ourselves and our society?

Are we improving ourselves or society now?

I doubt many decisions humans make are concerned with improving society. Even if they are it is with respect to their perspective of what it means to improve society.

A given society places constraints on people and incentivizes them to act in certain ways and over time this elicits changes in that society, but I don't see that constituting an improvement, unless your notion of improvement is simply change in the manner induced by societal pressures. But then improvement is guaranteed, tautologically, hence it is a a rather poor definition.

If humans were to become immortal then it seems likely that the constraints and incentives of a given society would elicit different responses from its members, thereby inducing a different type of change. And again whether this is an improvement depends on what your definition of improvement is taken to be. Surely, should such a time come, these new immortals' notion of improvement should take precedence over our own. But I doubt they would take conscious control over the manner in which their society changes any more than we do presently.

I have similar issues with the notion that we are, presently or at any time in the past, improving ourselves.

The purpose of a legal system is not preventing people from doing things deemed illegal. Its purpose is the maintenance and expansion of state power. Laws are not designed for your benefit. If you benefit from a law that is merely incidental.

Laws are just a facade to legitimize, in the eyes of the populace, the state enforcing its will.

The state writes the laws in their own interest so that the majority of the time it serves them to remain within legal bounds. And the majority of the times a state violates its own laws are not made public until years later, if at all, negating public outcry. In this way the citizenry remains placid and is willing to overlook the few events in which a state publicly flouts the law.

Enough exercise, or physical activity of any form, will fix this. The time and motivation to do enough is the challenging part.

Presumably to make it less bleak than it would be otherwise.

I don't see how it would be possible to avoid climate change. But attempting to minimize it, or at least minimize humans' contribution seems preferable to doing nothing.