I assume that ‘ending the remains of empires’ (Russia, China, Iran) either econo

I assume that ‘ending the remains of empires’ (Russia, China, Iran) either economically or militarily is going to be a costly necessity of our survival. I don’t see how it’s avoidable at all. Even if we are (as trump is trying to) redistribute the world order to those who benefit from it (most), then either way, the restructuring is going to take 30yrs. I think most historians of ‘change’ would hold about the same opinion. The world will be as different in thirty years as it was between 1850 and 1900, or between 1920 and 1950.
The pax americana of the 20th was only possible because most of the world committed suicide in the ending of agrarian empires and the transformation to industrial states – with some empires trying to survive because they were so backward (russia, china, middle east).
So like I said leading up to 2016, when the ball really started moving, I had some predictive ability up through 2020, but after that – well you know – timing is impossible, and outcomes are only vaguely imaginable.
My hope is that the current wave of innovation made possible by AI produces such ‘goods’ that we have something positive to focus on in this world. Otherwise, I can easily see the collapse of trade and the generation of conflict – particularly by starvation and energy warfare – such that we enter a cyclical decline on the scale of the roman empire. Would it last as long as the cancer cuased by the rise of christianity and islam? Probably not. But it would still be ‘bad’.

Reply addressees: @sqpatrick77