The only thing that forces us to come together and consider changing the rules is "static" limit on block size.
History proves you wrong on this one. We've already changed the block size cap - it used to be unlimited (effectively 20MB due to other restrictions) and it was moved to 1MB as a temporary measure to avoid potential spamming.
But, as it stands now, even 8MB blocks might be risky at the moment as we may lose significant amounts of full nodes and then decisions of changing the "consensus" rules will be made without the actual users of the network.
Switching to 8MB cap does exactly nothing immediately to the block size. We currently have a 1MB cap, yet we do not have 1MB blocks. 8MB gives some room to grow, that's all.
Economic pressure is a good thing, we should be welcoming it as there is a need to test this aspect of the system and see what other effects come into play and how the whole ecosystem reacts to this.
Then you should welcome a block size increase. We already have an open economic system. If miners want higher fees, they are free to increase their minimums. If enough of them do, then users will need to pay the fees or live with a slower transaction time. If/when we hit the cap, we will be entering uncharted territory, and imposing an artificial block on the natural increase of Bitcoin adoption.