We are at the point where we are in control of our environment to the extent where we are matching it to us. We are only forced to adapt, really, with technological advancements. If we are able to control and manage our environment (which we are not fully, hence 'sustainability' being a goal) then why not aim for greater things? We are able to change within ourlifetimes - we do change, when severe emotional situations arise, or, more occurrant, when general wealth is altered. The control of either change is both your own and your environment's. If we cannot change our environment or our society without breeding a new generation first, explain revolutions.
Where is the need for change? Well, the idea is taht we are not perfect, that we are not as good as we can be. Sure, that's always shifting in environmental terms but in moral and philosophical terms surely it's understandable? We have large societies (countries) spending enough money on weapons and defense that could cure world hunger, revitalise terrains to grow crops and invest in scientific research. We already live with a 'dictator' -- we have heirarchy in society. We are governed, how is that not similar? Governed sounds nicer than dictated, sure, but the point is that in both systems the final word is elsewhere.
There's more to intelligence than just dna. We aren't born able to wipe our own arses or hold down a conersation, let alone construct buildings, operate a keyboard. We learn. That is what our capacity of intelligence is. We learn constantly, unavoidably. Of course we can change. The change isn't physical - it's psychological, philosophical, moral. And it can't happen without people at least believing it can.