I don't share your pessimism, but you do make a very interesting point, or diagnosis. There are other evolutionary traits to consider: bigger groups of animals

I don't share your pessimism, but you do make a very interesting point, or diagnosis. There are other evolutionary traits to consider: bigger groups of animals do not necessarily correlate with better communication, hence economic/evolutionary friction (loss of efficiency). We're in a different situation where no one moved but everyone got connected, maybe this will let adaptation (good evolutionary traits and genes) spread faster across the species, or boost their completeness faster in time. Who knows. It's impossible to predict evolution at this stage, especially ours. These warnings should be considered and taken into account, but not impede our drive to improve. On a deeper political note, I and it seems more and more people seem to envision the idea of a much more granular organization and tiered, i.e. instead of 250 countries with average 30 million people, allow for much more diversity at a 1-10 million scale, and form meta blocks of ~1 billion to manage world affairs more easily. With a 'true' bottom-up democracy, this would allow much diversity at a local scale (geographically, but we can already imagine some of these few million-people groups being almost entirely online). That's 1 possible and desirable scenario for political evolution in this century IMHO (15 years of research in that domain lead me to this conclusion; there are other likely scenarios obviously).