I think you're mixing "what is" and "what could be". Ideally borders would cease existing and we would all work together for the betterment of the human species, and as a side effect perhaps the entire Earth we inhabit. I'll settle for humans first though.
Unless you map a route for "how do you get there from here", you're stuck with the same problem that a lot of Open Source projects face: blind faith that there is some incremental, rather than revolutionary, method of moving from a mediocre saddle point to a revolutionary result. I personally maintain that you can not incrementally achieve a revolution.
This may be because historically I'm tainted by working for companies like IBM, Apple, and Google, and I have seen where incremental gets you, compared to placing a stake in the ground, and just building around the stake, while letting the past wander off into the weeds.
Google X will accomplish revolutionary things. Most of the rest of Google will not. Facebook will not, and Yahoo will not, nor will Blackberry, all of whom are patterning themselves after an existing model.
Whenever the discussion comes up about what we could/should/will/can do, someone goes and mentions economy or money as if they're natural components of the universe. Economy and money are artificial concepts invented to distinguish between have and have-not, simple as that. Do away with money and you have no incentive to do most of the shit humans do to each other. When the money (or the lack of) is not getting in the way of doing the right thing, we will start seeing improvement for everyone. Untill then, I will keep calling out the capitalists on their bullshit.
This is a viewpoint from a post-singularity world; to get there, however, you have to be able to survive the singularity in the first place. There is no clear path from an economy of scarcity (what we have now) to an economy of abundance (a post-singularity world). The closest things we have to guideposts are science fiction stories in which someone implements a technological generational leap, and then gives it away to everyone, whether or not everyone wants it or not.
Barring that, we will have a short term centralization of wealth as automation centralized control of the means of production. The closest thing to a non-singularity bootstrap patch to get us over that divide would be declaring a flat or linear single slope tax, start it at some minimum income, and for people below that minimum income, the government makes up the difference so that everyone below the line hits the line, regardless of their contribution (or outright detriment) to society. That particular patch would have the highest probability, in terms of avoiding outright revolution, for the majority to at least live past the point of singularity.
So you can't discount economics, unless you are willing to accept a large-scale die-off (many malthusian minded environmental groups have already advocated this without advocating it directly (that would be politically suicidal), but the key to recognizing them is any statement that "Earth is nearing/over its carrying capacity", or words to that effect. What you can do is design strategies within the existing economic system.
As for our (as in the first world) motivation for doing anything in the foerign policy arena, I'll call bullshit too. We might be invading countries to keep them from bombing us, but that does not make it anymore right than what these people have been doing to us. Violence breeds violence. If a group feels that they have no venue to speak in, that noone is listening, yes violence will ensue. That does not legitimize responding in kind. Not ever. Provide a venue for people to be heard and feel like they are being heard and I will promise you that the level of violence will drop.
I think you did not read me correctly. My statement was more to the effect that interventionist policies to enforce our idea of correct social, economic, or moral behaviour on external polities have triggered reprisals. This is not to say that we should, as a people, be insular, but we can't dictate policy. The more effective we are in our intervention, the more disenfranchised the people who disagree with these policies become. Eventually, from despair, they believe that they might be better off dead, and, if so, exercise their ability to take as many of the people they perceive as oppressors with them as they possibly can.
I have absolutely no doubt that, had there been no safety valve of "Conscientious Objector" during the Vietnam war, and no safety valve of "escape to Canada/elsewhere", those people who were being forced into a position of violating their moral code would have taken the military training forced on them and excelled: they would have been the best soldiers they possibly could be, the best marksmen, the bess killing machines the training could make them. And then they would have turned that training not on the enemy they, once weaponized, were intended to be pointed at, but upon those that forced them into the position of violating their moral code in the first place. I have anecdotal evidence to this effect in the form of statements from people who used both types of safety valve.
The point being is that it's not possible, nor is it desirable, to legislate morality. Ultimately, the only laws which are effective are those which agree with the fundamental laws of the universe, since the physical universe does not believe in arbitrary enforcement; you step off a cliff, you fall. No exceptions for a senators son.