without exploiting there is no progress because if you dont, then everything will be "normal".
lets make a system containing 2 men. men A takes from man b because he can(he is more intelligent/powerful). so by having more than man b, man a can have a better life while man a has a worse but the system as a whole hasnt changed so you could say that nothing ever has changed.
however, if you take from man b and invest it into the future (lets say in science or a building project) you raise the total value of the system because you used this investment to raise quality of life or living standard.

(this may not answer you question because i only understood the half of it)

Ok, so what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is that exploitation of one's resources, be they human or non-human, is inevitable.

The essential gist of my question was, could this be considered a fundamental, inalterable condition of the human state, and if not, what could the alternatives be?

While people have always made use of each other's skills, there's a difference between sharing of resources and viewing another as an exploitable commodity. We've seen the latter demonstrated via wars, slavery, and various corporate machinations. In the latter case humans are simply assets to be converted to something else (often money or some-such).

Is it possible to move beyond this mindset, and if so, what would that alternative look like?

I think the majority of my viewpoint falls in line with what >>123 said.

A resource will always be needed because there is only so much one person can do for themselves, and these same limits on self-sufficiency are increased multifold for a society.

Whether the resource (thing being used) must always be human is another matter entirely. If something can replace the functions or characteristics that necessitate use of that specific resource (people), then humanity can get by without it.

As for whether we can move on from that mindset, and what said future could look like...no, and I don't know.

>>149
That would suggest that we're essentially predisposed to consuming each other (metaphorically speaking). That is to say, corporations are, in a sense, "allowed" to view a population as resources to transform into currency without regard for human dignity, rights, well-being, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the value of corporations. A profitable corporation can be a massive boon in terms of economy, quality of life, and so forth. The question becomes how far are they allowed to go when trying to convert Person A into Profit B.

Take Facebook as an example. There's nothing wrong with running a social network Facebook makes money by data mining users and selling the information to advertisers. Again, no real harm done, provided users know what they are being used for. The people running Facebook, however, have made a concerted effort to remove any thought of privacy whatsoever. Although they claim they are only giving users what the users want, they are also changing the perception of privacy to suit their needs (the conversion of Person A to Profit B).

So the (new) question is this: If it's in human nature to identify and exploit resources, and if humans are resources to other humans, what triggers enable humans to stop feeding (metaphorically) off other humans? Again, there's a difference between taking advantage of someone's skills and exploitation. What happens once that line is crossed, and what can humans change to move away from further crossings? Laws? Violence? A basic human conscience?

>>182
As humans, a species capable of problem solving, could we not move beyond this to a more fair system? Note that fair and egalitarian do not equate; this is a discussion to another thread.

>>189

Jesus, I have to stop posting when it's late. What I meant was that fairness and equality are not the same thing, and a discussion on that would best be served on another thread. That said, would humans, as problem solving creatures, be able to create social and economic structures that promoted fairness and, hopefully, a system that prevented the exploitation mentioned in earlier posts?

There, hopefully that's more comprehensible as a post.