Natural growth

"The way in which reality naturally proceeds." -- which can be (and is logically) contrasted with the way in which human endeavors and institutions sometimes proceed, but only to a certain level of grounding, as ultimately, the ways in which human actions proceed are also very well understood to be natural in this beforementioned sense. (And science has brought us greats leaps in understanding this phenomenon.)

Seems to me to be a key point, at one and the same moment:

• The only reasonable way by which socially constructed things can flourish, whether by this I mean that (a) it is in the long-run uneffective to design something; (b) it is a more ethical way of proceeding; (c) or that it is actually the only real way in things ever grow. Think: (i) democracy as a greenhouse, or stimulating environment, for natural moral policy-making growth; (ii) music, art and technology since the inception of the internet; (iii) postmodern reflections on urban flourishment; etc.
• The only effective way in which also bad things can, and have, flourished. When I think of unrestrained natural growth, I cannot help but directly think of the ... (capitalism in it's ugly faces, colonialism, effective resource depletion, etc.) ...

Just taking "natural growth" as a value is ridiculous. Where in Habermas' three value spheres would it belong? ...

Why this musing on natural growth? Hasn't it long ago been abandoned by philosophers as a source of ethical insight? Why take an apparent "systems-designing" stance, trying to apply "natural growth" to create a good system instead of appealing to individual human morality/agency?
=> Because I have a low esteem of both individual human agency, as something that is very voratile, very typically naturally distributed (in clear statistical terms), and very susceptible to their surrounding contexts; as well as a low esteem of institutions and other emergent systems, as things that, by their nature, are not guided towards societal or human well-being, in principle, at all. Either one of the two can make up for the other's fallacies, and in fact this is the best case scenario that we depend on in everyday reality, but there is no clear safe-guard as to that this should happen. Hence, I think of these two together mostly in pragmatic terms, and try to understand why and which affordances they have. To have hope, then, is to have the imaginatory power to figure out in which way these affordances can be set in motion in such a way as that it benefits society and humankind, and be able to reason why this should indeed happen, possibly (probably) given neccessary human action to achieve this goal. ...