Thanks for following my invitation. I am afraid, this will be a long response. I split it therefore into three comments. I hope, you'll take your time.
In my former response I have asked you:
If you assume that human beings are able to perceive imminent danger clearly and at a specific point in time, then we would first have to discuss this question, wouldn't we?
That is "can a specific point in time be detected other than we make it (decide it) so?"
You said
But that's why we've developed institutions of education, research, science and so on. That means that collectively we are able to understand the world, and indeed the universe to a rather significant degree.
To the degree of knowledge about the universe, I answered you in your other post.
I find it impossible to think of a collective as some sort of intelligent entity, for the individuals within this collective, never think, feel and explain things in the same way, but differently. So you have always different minds and different groups of interest within a collective.
Take thousand people. Do you think they act upon a hive mind to the advantage of everyone involved? I don't think so for a minute :) Then just increase the number and take a million, or all people on earth?
Why I don't think so, is not only my personal view but also a view I imagine other humans share. You've got to exclude or quieting (or worse, eliminating) those people in order to make this a collective view. You could use a killer argument like: "You just don't know that you belong to the collective mind and that in this mind everything is being taken care of for you. That you perceive it as bad is just a negative imagination of yours."
I am certain you would not speak to me in this way. And I wouldn't either. The problem here is that once you've come up with a certain notion and you put it into the world through words and political and social actions, something what could be accepted - because unmentioned - lightly into something experienced as heavy and horrific.
You may have the notion that what humans have "evolved into", can be seen as a linear cause and effect pattern, which results into more and more advancements = betterment of earthly live. But chances are, that this might not be the case. For the more advanced "we" think "we" are, the more tendency can take place to reduce the complexity of all living things into a simplistic, reduced form of understanding. We might develop in circles, neither backwards nor forwards, and from what I think, it's nothing, you and I, or a collective can directly answer. A collective does not exist in this way (like a bee hive or an ant colony). We imagine it, that's right.
It's a lot to respond to indeed, and I wish I had more time to do all of it justice... I believe I've responded to a lot of this in my response on my posts, but I will make an addendum here.
Here you strike the essential point where we've seen communism fail and succeed throughout history. It only ever succeeded in the small communities you describe here, like it did in prehistorical tribes, which were communist if we were to give them a label. And I don't know how to expand the community of human beings to the scales needed for levels of production that would make "modern communism," for lack of better words, possible. All institutions we've known so far have always become corrupt. Not even always intentionally, but simply because at some point the institution does thing for its own survival and its own power, rather than for the people it was intended for. Frank Herbert, the writer of the Dune book series once said something like this: "It's not that power corrupts, it's that power attracts the corruptible." This is the tension between my dream of communism and all the ways we've devised to organize large groups of people into a functional whole; such organization has never worked without the use of power and hierarchies. Take the nation; a nation is built around fabricated unity and loyalties, and fits within fabricated lines on a map that's not the real place, but merely a representation of it. Flags, national anthems, national sports, they're all thought up by those in power to foment cohesion between people who sometimes, or even most of the time have very little in common.
Still I believe it's possible. Call me a dreamer. But I do believe it's possible to teach ourselves to see in each other the ways in which we're the same (which is a lot), instead of always hammering on how we're different from each other. Our individual uniqueness is at the same time something that makes us all the same: we're all equally unique, are we not?
Your point about science is well taken and understood. However, I blame the fact that scientists stray away from their true calling and compete with each other to, as you say, "make a difference in the world," on the turbo-boosted individualism ingrained in us by more than two centuries of capitalism. And I know we can do better than that...