The problem is, you’re making the same assumption billions of religious people and ideologues have made over the millennia: namely, that humanity has some sort of an end game. There will never be world peace. We will never solve all of humanity’s problems. We’ll just keep on keeping on until we wipe ourselves out or the sun expands and burns us to a crisp. Might as well start accepting that.
I don’t think we’re ever going to see the abundance you’re envisioning, which would be the necessary precursor to peace. As long as we’re dealing with finite resources which are unevenly distributed both geographically and economically, the haves and have-nots will be in opposition to each other. There may be sporadic attempts to create a more fair and just society, but as others have noted, none have ever succeeded on a large-scale, long-term basis. Maybe if you could get all of the world’s current billionaires to buy into it, you’d have a good beginning – but I don’t think any of them are reading this message board.
This was much truer at the turn of the 20th century than today. And yet today the entire population of the U.S. (and the world at large) as a whole is stupendously better off than in 1900. Why doesn’t your theory account for that?
Honestly, no. I’m totally on the side of scientific progress and understanding, but science is not even remotely close to understanding how to utilize all resources, even in your magical fairy tale world in which everyone agrees on the “best way.” There have been hundreds of books and reports over the past century or more that have tried to do this and each has been totally discredited, to the point where no sensible scientist would attempt the task.
There is no “best way.” It’s impossible in theory and in practice. The most we can ever achieve is “slightly more good than bad.” And that’s what we have now.