I think the biggest problem I'm having with you assertions about the humanity of today vs. the humanity of yesteryear is that you seem to think there's really a difference.
"Our ancestors sought cultivation and we should too. I just don't follow the whole modern fashion of today--to seek MORE of everything all the time."
I really don't see how you think this is only a modern concept. All those great men we read about in history books- Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, Henry Hudson, Magellen, etc., etc... they wanted MORE. More glory, more money, more land. I mean, the imperialistic nature of humans has long been apparent, and if you have a problem with that tendency, I can see that as a valid complaint- it bothers me too. But to assert that the good ol' days were free of such activities and intentions doesn't jibe with me.
"Humans mostwhat only care about human and their thoughts, what is human more than the rest of the world"
Why do you think this is wrong? I'm not trying to say that it is or isn't, just wondering why you state it in such a way that it seems presupposed that we'll all agree that it's wrong. Does a lion care for a gazelle over itself? Does a gazelle care enough for a lion to donate its life for the lion?
I would say that because humans have the capacity to destroy the world, we have a vested interest in preserving it- for our own well-being, if for nothing else. Self-interest is natural and, in my opinion, healthy- it's when greed masks our ability to see what is our self interest, both individually and, to whatever extent, collectively, that we become self destructive.