I have a somewhat related question, if someone wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction.

In 2003 or so, I remember reading a slashdot article claiming that something about packet routing required mathematical computation, and that there was a way to form packets in a special way so as to get other computers to perform arbitrary mathematical calculations. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Humanity's biggest failing is not aggression, but rather lack of empathy. Aggression is often just one of many manifestations of the lack of empathy.

It's not terribly surprising, either. Humanity's greatest limitation is that each human is inherently trapped inside his or her own mind. Considering that humans demonstrate a terrible tendency towards reinforcing existing biases, which themselves are often introduced via societal, and not scientific, norms, shared consciousness is really the only way of breaking through a human's tendency towards propagating self-centered perspectives.

As a side note, liberals often tend to acknowledge that humans are flawed, varied, and thus deserving of rights that other humans might not want, like gay marriage. Religious conservatives tend to believe there is a golden standard of infallibility and righteousness, against which each human may be objective measured and judged. Which one seems more dangerous?

One of the most complicating factors is that almost every observable aspect of the universe is on a "slippery slope" of gray definitions. It's impossible to define clear boundaries for law, philosophy, and sociology. Those who insist otherwise tend to not appreciate the nuances and distinctions of various scenarios that make it implausible to apply a "one-size-fits-all" method of judgment against all circumstances. Humans, by definition, are just not equipped to deal with the complexity of anything but the most simple realities.