Let me just throw in a more 'parochial' concept:
the tragedy of the commons. If it isn't even possible for the people to share a resource without destroying it, it must have implications for what is possible in terms of government, the state and freedom of the individual.
In my local town there's one of these shared bike schemes which I thought was a fantastic idea when it was launched. But for reasons beyond my understanding, people vandalise and destroy the bikes or, with seeming impunity, smash off the solenoid-operated locks and steal them, riding them around in full view despite their distinctive appearance. Utterly pathetic.
But there's a weird undercurrent to it: instead of being angry at the people destroying the bikes, the locals seem to be more angry at the company attempting to run the scheme. The logic seems to be: if a company trusts people with valuable objects that aren't chained down, they must expect them to be vandalised. And then this makes the place look messy. How dare the company be so arrogant? And perhaps there's an element of anti-big business, too.
To me, this tiny example suggests that all the utopian concepts people dream up are flawed. If they're not explicitly factoring in the sheer selfishness, nastiness, vindictiveness, and warped priorities of a sizeable proportion of the population, then they cannot work. I don't even think that education or the social engineering of the BBC can do anything to change it.