I agree with what you say in general, and I also question the wisdom of the lives we lead today as opposed to the past; but making the world fit us is not a flaw of capitalism, that's its aim.
It's not about money, power or greed, in the way you mention. These can be representations or even outcomes in certain instances, but they are not the ultimate aim of capitalism.
For the record, I am not sure if a simple nomadic lifestyle is better or the lives we lead today; but as aforesaid, the aim of capitalism is to get resources in the hands of the most productive. For example, we could all learn to build a home, plot a farm, etc; but is that more efficient or is it better for those who are best at building homes or sustaining farms or what have you doing that and trading based on some exchange of value (represented by monetary transactions, primarily, these days)?
Simply put, some things even have a natural advantage: country x has better climates to make bananas than country y. So why should both countries produce it? This is a waste of resources if one country pursues banana farming as they waste more inputs in doing that, when they could be providing another service or good with less resources used.
So, I disagree with your assessment immensely; free market capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Ironically, it's the system best capable of meeting the needs of the parties that come together because it means that only on terms that they voluntarily agree to does anything happen. Things like "empowerment of the human soul" are subjective, arbitrary and will forever be a mystery. If we build a society based on that, who knows what we'd be doing and which vision we'd be following - not everyone's soul desires the same things. When it comes to the survival of the human species: what better system than that which improves our capability to produce for the population - hopefully shifting our technologies to the point where we can survive past the use-by date of planet Earth? Who says a natural evolution is better? Some natural occurrences wipe out whole races or life on planets. If a meteorite is heading for Earth; should we let it hit us come what may and the surviving humans continue their evolutionary path? Or do we try to destroy the meteorite before it hits all of us?
What I was referring to is the fact that things are getting faster, harder, more burdensome to sustain because the competition has gotten so much greater. There are more people, smarter people, longer living people, etc, these days. These factors put a strain on all us who are after the same thing: survival. So when I talk about a 'flaw' I am referring to this. Some people cling to the lives they've led, the notions they knew, the family they grew up with and they're having trouble adjusting because the world is just moving at such a faster pace these days. Communication is instant, it makes other things possible faster. And to catch up...people might need 2 degrees, might need to retrain themselves yearly to cope, to keep up with everybody else.
Now, I can see the argument that questions if such a thing is desirable - but it is the whole point of capitalism and not a flaw in a systemic sense. It just may be that you don't wish for the world to head in this direction and that's fair enough too. But the point I was making is that if you're going to use a capitalistic system, use it in its purest and fairest form. People delude themselves into certain hybrids of it, and get fooled into giving more power to other people under false pretences. At least in a free market system, you only give your power (in a sense money or time) up when you voluntarily agree to it, in every transaction.
Playing the devil's advocate and espousing some of the ideas which are in the book I mentioned; one can argue if we even should be going for such a system. Who says the human race surviving, if it needs to go through all this, is a good thing? What is good is subjective and down to a person. Does the universe really need humans? Maybe if we lived the kinds of lives our ancestors lived, we'd live shorter; but with a far more care free existence? If all we do is consume, then we'll fight after resources and wars are inevitable. If you haven't, give the book a read