Expansion bad!(?)

In response to this post:

Europe "survived" the centuries before by having famines, plagues, and revolutions. There was a need for improvement. Sure, the governments could have probably filled much of the gap, but it was because of these types of events that governments began backing the expeditions into the vast unknown for more resources. If the environment in the motherland was entirely free, healthy, employed, and progressive I guarantee there'd be very little outward reaches for territories (~the Swiss). Even if these countries were only colonizing to stay up in competition with the other nations ("Germany"), what would happen if they didn't? They'd become weaker and weaker until one of those larger countries consumed it. Is that better, more humane? Is that not what imperialism is already?

Your moral compass is not that of all humanity's. If a mother's child would die unless she killed 20 average Joes, entirely unrelated to her situation, she'd do it. Is it human compassion? "Human compassion" has not a finite definition, nor is it "compassionate" in the general sense of the word.