Has it ever crossed your mind that given the global nature of certain things such as climate change, rational actors in the sovereign nation states would then c

Has it ever crossed your mind that given the global nature of certain things such as climate change, rational actors in the sovereign nation states would then conclude it is indeed in their best interests to cooperate internationally on such issues while still maintaining their sovereignty? I see this trite argument brought up far too often, that national borders are so medieval... and don't make sense anymore. I'm having a hard time resisting the urge to curse here, and I say that because I want to convey how strongly I feel this line of thinking is foolish, naive, and a complete misunderstanding of the history of governmental structures throughout the modern history of the world and their impact on the progression of human rights and other advances. The American Revolution was and is a unique revolution throughout the ages, one which established a unique government based on natural rights. I in no way agree that such a structure, with rule of law based on those principles, is in any way, shape, or form, "short-sighted" or "nonsensical". As a matter of fact, if you were an American politician, the statement you have just made would qualify you for removal from office and imprisonment and/or a fine, under 5 U.S. Code § 7311. I see though, you may be from Spain. I really do get tired of being lectured on the dangers of nationalism by members of "constitutional" monarchies... really an anecdotal point but I find it's true often enough to make a point of it. Such governments have classically been opposed to nationalism for completely different reasons, ones I find more truthful even today than the proclaimed "we need to solve global issues" cliches. Such reasons usually being that if they allowed sovereignty of nation-states it undermines their global power positions! "The world needs more corporation" What an appropos freudian slip, for if we were to remove the nation-state from the world stage, more (mega-supranational-)corporation is exactly what we would get. Now, one point of agreement. Yes, I am not disputing that the world needs more cooperation on international issues, but to then turn around and use those issues to advocate overthrowing the idea of sovereignty is a logically fallacious reasoning, is callous and naive, and I can only imagine such touting comes from the ivory tower of intellectuals, academics and other insulated peoples who haven't experienced the stark reality of this world when the sovereignty of nation states is violated. In short, those who call for an end of nationalism fail to understand the proper and right role of sovereignty in the apllication of the rule of law, and in the ability for the people to affect their government. So tell me, what would you propose to replace the nation-state with once you toppled it down?