Ben,

I think there is a basic conceptual fallacy that does go back to monotheism and even platonic ideal forms. That we equate the ideal, which is aspirational, with the absolute, which is elemental.

For example, a spiritual absolute would be that essence of sentience, from which life rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which it fell.

So there is this inclination to see our evolutionary progression as heading towards some more perfect, ideal destination/ultimate state. Rather than as cycles of emergence and consolidation.

Since the forward progression stage is of the expansion, there are many directions possible for our linear thinking and the consequent feedback it creates. Leaving these various cults "drinking their own bathwater."

With economics the problem is that as these linear, goal seeking creatures, we see money as the signal to extract and store, but that markets need it to circulate, like blood in the body, feeding the entire society. What the economist don't seem to see is that a medium and store are quite different, as one is dynamic, while the other is static. Blood is a medium, fat is a store. Roads are a medium, parking lots are a store. The hallway is a medium, the hall closet is a store. Given the average five year old understands the difference and why they are distinct, it is a masive failure for economics to ignore the fact that as a contract between the individual and the community, money is a public utility and needs to be treated as such. Then people might not become so obsessed over possessing it, once they realize why there are so many strings attached and try storing value in other ways.