Saying something is "obvious" doesn't make it so.
What's not obvious about transportation helping you survive in the modern world? Generally people need to provide work or similar activities of value in order to be able to obtain the things they need to survive like food, shelter, etc. And the work almost never is where you can live.
And I find it rather frivolous for you to ignore that things can have value beyond their use for mere survival.
That just means people would help each other pursue each others' respective interests out of charity instead of trading through capitalism.
Not if those respective interests conflict. Capitalism is a fair and effective way to resolve such conflicts of interest with respect to things of value. Should a bit of land be better used for a library or an orphanage? Rather than some wasteful if friendly societal debate which might take years or even decades to resolve, people simply buy land for the respective uses.
In the theoretical world where nobody is greedy
In your "theory". In my theory, that isn't sufficient. In practice, there are conflicts even in the frequent cases where greed isn't a contributing factor.
Same difference. So you want to own what beyond "personal" property for yourself. That is greed. You desire to "own" more than just your "personal" property.
Nope. The desire has to be "inordinate". That was in the definition of "greed" which you quoted and promptly ignored. Merely owning something in turn doesn't even indicate desire is present. If I want to build an orphanage, I need land on which to build it. An orphanage is far in excess of my needs for survival, but you are effectively claiming that I have greed for orphanages as a result.
This was the source of my complaint about your semantic abuse of terms (greed, capitalism, and private property).
You confuse your quote with something that is undeniable fact.
Actually, you ignore there that capitalism does have a morality. For example, I can't merely make someone else's property my own. Theft is against the moral code of capitalism. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be a concrete sense of ownership.
So saying that capitalism is amoral is not "undeniable fact" but merely wrong. But my observation remains correct. It's well known that people normally treat their property better than they treat property not owned by them, especially property that isn't owned by anyone at all (eg, public property and goods). But you can get people to treat other peoples' property better, if you give them incentives, say a paying job.
So a janitor might treat a business's bathrooms better than their own, but primarily because the incentives are there for them to do so. Sure, it probably is "greed" in your ridiculously stretched definition of the word, but the janitor probably needs more the wages of that job than a cleaner bathroom at home.