guy predicts future empires while confidently not understanding them

Pt.2 **So,** do I think another regime will one day grow in relative reach beyond that of the Roman Empire or 1950's America? Yes, I absolutely do, but I also think that we're going to have to take the long way round. I suspect that (as political conflict comes to a boiling point) there will once again be attempts at spreading influence–new empires will form and grow in the name of unifying humanity–but no modern Democratic people would accept a new, less Democratic government. As such, there would be mass civil unrest in these regions. If the fledgling empire isn't defeated readily, before it makes significant gains, then it becomes a disaster waiting to happen. Eventually–much like the Roman Empire–it too will stretch itself too thin with conflict and be forced to abandon controlled regions back to the locals. Hopefully the Empire that takes control has an eye for classical Republican values, because if they make them into a territory or commonwealths then there is at least a mixed government left in place that already has legitimacy. This is how we might actually have a chance of subverting the 'cycle of regimes,' as the Ancient Greeks called it. The other option would be for mixed government to be *reinforced* by another foreign power in the event that the empire is defeated (see: Germany after WWII). If they do not hold to those values–if they take full political control of the regions as the Roman Empire did–then in their collapse they will leave pure anarchy in their wake. With nothing to replace them with, the power vacuum will draw groups to form small governments of their own. After a period of Anarchy, the desire for law & order will likely lead to a greater number of successful Kingships/Monarchies than other forms of government, because social perspectives will have broadly shifted to seek order and civility after all of the chaos and disorder. The most successful examples will likely be those in which the King is chosen (in an original, one-time election) by the People as the best among them, rather than those in which a person with resources seizes power. The former has the full support of the People, for a few generations, perhaps; the latter has little to no support from the beginning, and will fall relatively quickly. I've rambled on a bit, but from there on we're likely to see gradual changes over time as the heirs of once-great Kings begin to resemble Tyrants, and the elite few and masses both will grow weary of it. They will overthrow the tyrants (in a broad, allegorical sense) and institute new governments either without a Monarch altogether or with a means of controlling them. There is a chance, albeit slim, that we may have a chance at this point to reinstate a balanced, tripartite constitutional republic that can grow from there–if the right people in the right places have the right education. The faster we manage to make mixed government work, the higher the chance of going global, because a tripartite constitutional republic (historically) allows for *much* more stability and prosperity under rapid growth than any other form of government and the strong focus on the middle class provides the support of the masses; there would likely be none who could seriously stand against it. The barrier, however, remains; until the masses are willing to give up a part of their power, there is no workable pathway to a global government. Once they're willing to give it up, the new problem becomes convincing them that Democratic governance doesn't *have* to lead to the violence that they grew up seeing, and that balance is the best alternative. That is a tough cookie to crack, especially if the education system collapsed along with the old empire (now decades or centuries past). It will take time, but we learn more each time and the knowledge spreads a bit further–keeping the largescale trajectory of humanity in an unmistakably positive direction, even if there are periods of regression.