Edit: I’m not sure why I inferred that you suggested that control would belong to a single group, but I wrote this response as though that’s what you said. In r

Edit: I’m not sure why I inferred that you suggested that control would belong to a single group, but I wrote this response as though that’s what you said. In retrospect you don’t seem to be excluding the possibility of what I’m describing, so we might actually be on essentially the same page. Also edit: one major concern I have isn’t even traditional weapons or force, but bespoke bio weapons made possible by technologies we already have which are advancing rapidly. Using sickness against enemies was profoundly effective in the past, and could be even more so today. There doesn’t appear to be a way, or even an initiative to find a way, to prevent this technology from going rogue. ———— I worry less about unified entities using this kind of power and more about rogue entities essentially utilizing monopolies of force to terrorize each other and their dominated populations. I don’t think a single group would rule the world so to speak. Like organized crime, powerful groups would likely claim regions and countries and exist in an extremely precarious and perilous struggle for power. There would remain a seemingly endless arms race. If one group came out on top, I have no doubt that it too would fracture and initiate yet another arms race. I can’t be certain because the technologies we’re seeing developed, and what’s on the horizon, is absolutely game-changing in many ways. What if one country unlocks fusion and some other key technologies, but doesn’t share them? Say, China for example. If they could use that to efficiently build a staggeringly huge and powerful military with brand new technologies no one could practically contend with, we’d certainly see a new hegemony. But I’m very doubtful that it would last long due to internal fracturing. I’m open to being wrong of course.