The difference between transcending human nature and working with human nature is a sorites paradox, and has been since the dawn of civilization. Each step of creating a society that allowed for larger societies, from dozens to thousands to millions, was transcending human nature until we found a system that worked. Yes, every civilization decays and falters, often due to disrupting factors, hence the classic goal of a thousand year reign hasn't yet been achieved.

Sociological development can be used to facilitate public involvement in civics, or to shield civics from public involvement with a veneer of deception. The problem isn't that we don't know the problems or solutions to them, but that those who gain power would rather be powerful than functional or happy, and are glad to exert that power to preserve it even against those who mean them well. It's a warbler feeding and nurturing a cuckoo chick (at the expense of her own offspring) except in this case the chick never matures and flies off, rather it just keeps growing and sucking up more resources like a cancer.

How do we work with this human nature? Consider also if we fail to curb this tendency, the proverbial chick will also poison our global ecology until it is uninhabitable even to those who mind the industries that feed it. Hopefully, it is a barrier we break much the way we've escaped monarchy. But is that transcending human nature or working with it?

Personally, I'm already coming to terms the human species is facing existential risk, and if it doesn't facilitate its own extinction, may cause so much damage as to limit our future ambitions; no space-faring colonization in our future, and most of our culture as we know it today is not going to survive the next few centuries regardless of whether the species does.