If you're suggesting that what human civilization needs, in order to elevate us to a more global maximum (by your favorite rubric, whatsoever), is climate catas

If you're suggesting that what human civilization needs, in order to elevate us to a more global maximum (by your favorite rubric, whatsoever), is climate catastrophe, I think you could serve yourself well by looking into generational trauma and PTSD. It's the culling of vulnerable populations that will limit our biodiversity and development towards ultimate catastrophe resilience. We've seen enough homogenization of architecture and institutions already to seriously endanger our tenure on the planet. It's strange to me that you view "western nations" as possessing "greater stability" than the Persian, Indian, Chinese, and Ottoman empires and, likewise, strange that you think "the Onepercenters" "historically preferred" strong, stable social structures and not, specifically, a differential between their holdings and a marginal region to exploit. Some people like to romanticize the opportunities available for underdogs in times of crisis but, for example, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is an easy counter-example. Vulnerability isn't strength. A "rising tide" doesn't lift all boats. Ours is a hugely abstract and almost criminally vague level of discourse, however. I can't think of any meaningful consensus at which you and I might arrive. I just hope you can grow to recognize that survival of the fittest has no foresight, and no memory. Too cheaply do we cull the only locally unfit. Leaving climate change to do its worst in the hopes that it might topple "business as usual" sounds like a great way to preserve the most ruthless actors.