> How about no hegemony? Are we allowed that as an option.
You can have two or more somewhat balanced powers jockeying for supremacy by way of cold or real wars, but this seems strictly worse for nearly everyone than a single imperfect, democratic superpower. I don't think there's a world in which nations don't compete for influence, at least not in the next century.
> USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends.
I don't see how anyone can look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets.
> We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change).
I don't see a global democracy coming to fruition in the next 100 years. It's an interesting idea, however.
You can have two or more somewhat balanced powers jockeying for supremacy by way of cold or real wars, but this seems strictly worse for nearly everyone than a single imperfect, democratic superpower. I don't think there's a world in which nations don't compete for influence, at least not in the next century.
> USA seems only to be fighting China, so it can replace/keep itself in place as bully of the World meddling and causing untold harm for very perverse ends.
I don't see how anyone can look on 20th century history and conclude that a US hegemony is as bad as it gets.
> We need actual democracy, if we can make it work, proportional representation seems a bare minimum to work towards if we want to seek greater global cooperation (which we must to combat global climate change).
I don't see a global democracy coming to fruition in the next 100 years. It's an interesting idea, however.