Zarf,

"they [specializations] are only a byproduct of the creation of other social institutions you mentioned, and thus a reason why the other institutions thrived"

I'm glad you recognize that institutions caused specialization of labor and thus your more urbanized society and that this in turn further restructured institutions which thus further restructured specialized labor and urbanization. 

But was this all a random chain reaction beginning with the first institutions, or was there some sort of guidance or control of the chain reaction?  Sadly, the structure of the first institutions did in fact come to define the nature of our current society, more than most understand.   Moreover, the structure of our current institutions did not come about solely as a result of advancing utilitarian benefit to society as a whole.  In most examples of the restructuring of institutions, it occurred by design, according to the self-interest of those in control of the power to restructure said institutions.

First, to assume there was no design in the restructuring of institutions would be to assume there was no control over those institutions being restructured.   And yet the very structure of institutions themselves requires there to be a centralized government in control of institutions in order for them to function or, for that matter, to be restructured.  How, as an example, could there be a military without a chain of command, and, for that matter, how could that military modernize without a chain of command to issue its modernization?

Now, this brings us to the question of how often leaders of institutions have restructured institutions according to their perceived notion of the greater good to society at large and how often they have restructured said institutions for the betterment of their own (or decedents') self-interests. Weren't the Pharaohs more concerned with the grandeur of their Pyramids than the well-being of the slaves they drove to construct them?  Likewise, did the ancient Grecian philosophers grant their women and their slaves the same voting privileges (and thus power to restructure institutions of ancient Grecian society) as they themselves employed?  Were feudal peasants really as empowered to affect change to their societal institutions as the feudal lords who controlled them?  Of course not.

Moreover, there are ample historical examples of when the restructuring of institutions of a given society occurred, it was done so in large part to pursue perceived benefits to those in control and not in pursuit of a utilitarian 'greater good' of society as a whole: ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Christian-dome, ancient Chinese dynasties, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, American Revolution, etc..  In all examples I can think of, it was the ones who were in control of the most influential institution of all, the military, which restructured that society's institutions according to their own (the victors') self-interest.

...

Have to go and do something else.

Anyway, I doubt there was much evolution of society.  I see it as simply having been designed by the victors, for better or worse, not necessarily better, and, actually, ultimately, probably for the worse overall.

edited for clarity and typos

[Reopened]

..based on Zarf's request.

Zarf,

I am not claiming that there as never been some institutions that arose to serve the greater good of a given society.  Nor am I saying that the first institutions did not arise to do so either.  What I am saying is that in the rare event when institutions came about due to their utilitarian benefits to society as a whole, they were almost always infiltrated and became controlled by those whose primary interest in controlling those institutions was self-serving.  In modern times, in order to limit the corruption of our institutions, another institution, the judiciary, was instated.  However, it in and of itself is insufficient in preventing any and all corruption of institutions, and, moreover, what institution came about to monitor corruption of the judicial system itself?  The theory is that the power of legislative and executive branches of democratic government is mediated by the judiciary and vice versa.  How has that been working out in preventing corruption of said institutions?  In my opinion, not so well.

some people know

some people teach

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

Some people, but not you

Firstly, is the corruption of ideals and thus the corruption of the institutions which represent those ideals is inevitable?

Secondly, if it is inevitable, and if in fact it is from the corruption of those institutions that poverty results, isn't a certain amount of poverty also inevitable? 

If the above is all true, there would be a direct proportional correlation between the level of corruption of a given society's institutions and the level of poverty suffered by that society. Would it not, therefore, be reasonable to assume that by diminishing the level of corruption of said ideals and corruption of said representative institutions that the level of poverty within a society would also be diminished?  If so, then our recourse is to implement cultural, legal, and social mechanisms which limit corruption of ideals and the institutions built upon those ideals.

However, this is all to assume that the corruption of ideals and corruption of institutions is NOT ultimately inevitable.  Is it really simply a matter of a there being a fixedly depraved human nature incapable of transcendence from a tendency to corrupt and sabotage ideals to maintaining and fulfilling ideals?  In other words, how do we know it is not possible to improve human nature?

The Church would have us believe that human nature is in fact depraved and incapable of transcendence, without, of course, God's grace, forgiveness of sins through belief in the death and resurrection of Christ.  Much the same could be said of the premises of the other major world religions: that without such and such belief in such and such scripture / god-head, human nature is depraved, lost, incapable of unfettered idealistic endeavors.  But religions' efforts at converting human nature from destructive saboteur to creative savant has proven to be just as destructive and sabotaging as wars wrought by the most villainous militaristic empires.

We are left with the questions:

If human nature can be improved, how can it be improved so as to limit the corruption of ideals and their representative institutions?

If human nature cannot be improved, what cultural, legal, social mechanisms are in place and, in the future, may be put in place to limit the corruption of ideals and their representative institutions?

Poor people stay poor because they're to dumb or unwilling to properly manage their finances. (debt.)