The Driver of Human progress

What drives human progress? I would like to think that it is free, empowered thinking, forward looking, creative innovation.
However, if you look at the underlying motivations of progress, it is fear. Fear of God or fear of not making enough money. Whatever your convictions are in a Western society, these really are the main drivers of progress. The only problem with it is, that it does not put people in a powerful position where they think openly and freely, but it rather puts people inside predefined boxes.
I am happy to understand that 1) not everyone in the Western societies thinks like this and there are great creative initiatives and truly happy people who think way out the box. 2) human progress is not driven only by the Western societies and elsewhere happy, liberated thinkers and doers come up every day with new, better, more sustainable ways of doing things.
I guess this answers why most of us do not like to be considered mainstream westerners, it is actually more of a vision of fear and slavery than a happy thought.
I guess that is why I like reading Earth, the book, it mocks our rather narrow scope of thinking. A good read, but I do not think it gives too many answers to the big questions. It merely pushes the reader to let go, smile and try to do things differently next time.

Music

When I was younger, I used to listen to Ricky Martin. I don´t listen to him any more. I listen to random music all the time - music other people listen to and I overhear. I am not even sure what band is in...but I go to more concerts than even before and hear lots of music. I just don´t consciously listen to it.
But I appreciate music more then ever before. While I am at concert, wondering about the decibels and the damage to my ears, I observe people. People dance, jump, sing along, move their limbs in a random way, whistle, scream, clap, do all kind of things. Music does not let them just stand there and observe. People participate. People with different musical preferences react to different kinds of music. But everyone knows of some music that will cheer them up of bring them down.
This is why music, among the other forms of art is still the most outstanding. Because it´s alive, not static. If one reads a poem, looks at a painting or sculpture, one is likely to have an opinion. Yet it´s not too common to dance around paintings ... (possible, though, I know).
Music triggers us.
Different music for different people.
For example, the Blower´s daughter...brings me down, but makes me feel soo alive. I guess another song does the same to you.

The solution to global problems :-)

I like bold titles :-) But just before you read on, I must warn you, you may disagree with the thoughts shared here...if you read on, I´ll be happy.
So: There are so many issues in the world - from AIDS through hunger, flood victims, to victims of wars. All developed countries (and less developed ones, too) are trying to support all kinds of charitable initiatives to tackle these problems.
By sharing responsibility, it´s no one country´s ultimate responsibility to fix anything, though. So here´s what I propose: each country should "adopt" a global problem: e.g. the Netherlands will come up with solutions to alternative energy from water (hydro, tidal, wave). They would be accountable for always developing new technologies and governments and businesses worldwide would all come to the Dutch for solutions.
I understand we´d have to work out (1) how problems would be allocated to countries, (2) how can we ensure the quality of the solution if there is no market economy involved, (3) how can we make sure solutions are offered to businesses as well even though they do not always participate in the development.
Yes, I know, the theory is not fully developed yet. But imagine, the UN would get together and list all global problems and prioritize them. Then they would estimate the cost of solving it. And countries depending on their wealth would become responsible for 1 problem each. And in case they fix it (e.g. there is no more hunger in the world), they receive a new task, the next one on the priority list.
I also understand that this approach seems to simplify the complexity of issues (e.g. such as hunger - it´s a consequence of many factors). I also accept the criticism for calling this approach very "command and control"-like, even going against the fundamentals of the currently dominant free market economic system.
Yet, I still see a point in clarity (it´s clear who does what) and accountability (countries can hold each other responsible for meeting or not meeting the timeline of projects).
Oh, and maybe someone else already came up with this theory and it was already tried and went wrong. In that case, this is just a reminder of how ideas in different people´s minds reoccur.
The underlying assumption to this approach is that (1) we all care, (2) countries are willing to become part of this regardless of the changes in the government.
So, any questions? Where do we get started?
Let me know!