Part of me wonders if maybe some of these systems are questionable fits for the time period. The last 500 years were a unique opportunity for the western world

Part of me wonders if maybe some of these systems are questionable fits for the time period. The last 500 years were a unique opportunity for the western world: * Western powers conquered an entire hemisphere of new wealth with (relatively) minor pushback. * We've had a long string of cheap resource rushes-- pulling the silver and gold out of the Western hemisphere, followed by the "easy" oil and gas. * Most of the major disruptions to commerce and growth were regional in nature and/or short in duration. For all their carnage, the World Wars were less than 20 years total. * Overpopulation and resource exhaustion was the stuff of minor nuisance and speculative fiction for all but the last couple of decades. This has meant it was relatively easy times for free markets and democracy. We haven't really seen how they sway under some of the incoming existential threats. Can a democratic government bring a meaningful response to climate change? We may be at the point where state actors have to say "you are obliged to do without or change your behaviour for the public good" in the near future, but will elected leaders have the spine to say it, when they know they'll be replaced by someone who will say "Sure, let the next generation burn so you can continue to drive a 12-MPG F-350 to work at a coal mine?" If we enter a period of significantly tighter resource supplies, will entrepeneurship remain viable? Resource owners, particularly state-level ones, will become gatekeepers and kingmakers. If you control most of the world's (insert valuable commodity here), will you want to sell it to a proven operation with a demonstrated plan, or a wing-and-a-prayer startup who may end up wasting a nonrenewable asset?