The world also became a lot more connected, so we're exposed a lot more to wars and such abroad, and we've matured morally speaking and can see that all wars are unnecessary.
I thought I read that people said nearly that identical thing shortly before the start of World War I. That world economies are so intertwined and peace was lasting.
> Only in a western welfare bubble. Morality over war is what you can afford having other security needs taken care of.
That's actually a false hypothesis of people in the 'western bubble' who haven't experienced war. Research I've seen shows that people in places that have experienced it, such as in Syria, are much more opposed to it.
And that bears out in Western experiences: Who created the UN, with the stated purpose to prevent another war? Who created (the ancestor institutions that became) the EU to prevent another European war? Who enforced the Geneva conventions and prosecuted war criminals after WWII?
The answer is, the people who had lived WWI and WWII. They knew far more of war than anyone today in the West, and they thought it was the worst scourge of humanity which must be prevented from happening again at almost any cost. Who are we to disagree?
Do note the same countries still wage war (and trade in realpolitik). What you're saying is not mutually exclusive with what I'm saying, it's on a continuum.
The western world has developed institutions that give it security. Once those parts of the world ravaged by war do the same, they too will enjoy peace and stability.
Well, we're undoing these institutions with an ever-growing fervor, as we appease the insecurities of a few rich and powerful people by handing them yet another election and yet another few units of currency on top of their almost unimaginably huge mountain of existing wealth.