I admit that self-interest is biological, I do not deny this; but I wish to posit that capitalistic self-interest is not biological, or at least, it is possible to overcome this. Capitalistic self-interest when applied to the capitalists thrives off the work of others, instead of working, he will use the work of others. In a similar way, the wage labourer, instead of working to secure what he wants, he can usually only work to secure what he
needs in the form of his wage, which serves as his sustenance.
I have to also admit that capitalism is indeed very good to make sure that those who have needs have them met, provided that they are able to find the right person to sell their labour-power to, not too cheaply, and the rate of surplus isn't too high as to discourage the worker and alienate him even further from the things he makes.
Unfortunately though, I figure it's an unjust system because of the structural inequality of the trade itself; by far the biggest trade happening is that of the labour-power commodity for wage (starting off the M-C-M chain). But this trade is grounded within an unfair position of one over the other; the wage labourer needs that wage in order to survive, it is his means of sustenance, how he replenishes his ability to work (along with sleep and rest, which is also a desirable quality) and how he ensures future flow of people into the labour-power market by means of reproduction.
Although it would seem as though the worker "values" his wage more than his labour-time, the reality is that in many cases (pushed to the extreme in some developing nations) is that the worker values his life more than death; thus the only way to live is by selling labour (unable to by risk of death or lack of capital or social situation or having a family to feed to become bourgeois himself in most cases).
Now I'm not arguing that people don't need to work in a society free from wage labour - that wouldn't be much better than capitalism. It would require that the products of at least someone's labour are appropriated (which is what's happening now). Rather, the workers democratically decide what to make and in what quantity, and democratically decide what to do with the products afterwards, and what to do with any surplus product. With increased automation (used of course for workers to mean they work less rather than for more short-term profit). This sets up a voluntary system of exchanges, no one person oppressing another. Of course management, engineering etc. are also jobs that apply labour too.
With regard to [1], you may be interested in "Towards a New Socialism" by Paul W. Cockshott. He's written about this topic of cybernetic central management. He has other works too in the same vein. There are also alternatives such as decentralised planning and market socialism too, though I'm not really here to argue in favour of any particular one.
In another comment you say:
>My point is that such "ordering of care" is part of our firmware, and because capitalism is compatible with that, it's easy to implement by humans - in the same way the basic concept of private property seems to be also a part of our firmware, and more extreme parts of communism being incompatible with that meant people started to work against the system.
Capitalism (in the sense of the production of commodities) requires the division of labour, though the division of labour does not require capitalism. Besides, this, as Marx writes, humanity had existed for thousands of years with people doing the job of tailoring and weaving, yet there was no specific job for them. On the other hand, other primitive societies had division of labour but no production of commodities. Internal capitalist organisations also take advantage of the division of labour without commodity production (the sectors of a firm do not trade and barter or engage in M-C-M, despite the division of labour).
With regard to private property, I must disagree; I do not think it is natural at all. Personal property, the right of possession, may be considered a natural phenomenon, but to cordon off an area of land and engage wage labour upon it is not natural; the concept of property is a relatively recent one, having different but distinct forms under feudalism and the mester-slave society that preceeded that. Kropotkin and Proudhon have written about this in The Conquest of Bread and What is Property? respectively. Even if one will claim it is natural, Proudhon makes the case that it is founded in barbarism, and private property is incompatible with the ideals of freedom, equality and justice within a society. For this, he says "Property is impossible."
We should be cautious to decleare things as part of our firmware, especially given that studies on our 'firmware' take place in these modern capitalistic societies in which people are forced, so much that it is ingrained, to engage in wage labour unless lumpen or petit-bourgeois or bourgeois.
Apologies for the long comment, the moderators of Hacker News have put some kind of flag on my account which means that I'm not allowed to post too quickly, probably beacuse I get into heated discussion. I had to respond to your other point lest it happen again when I make a second post.