[foobarian]

Just look to WW1 and WW2 to see what real world instability looks like. I don't think anyone would prefer that kind of bloodletting to status quo.

Now you can argue that nuclear weapons are the root cause for current stability, and ask if a world with nuclear weapons but less aggressive US would be better off.

Bottom line, the first world's prosperity is based on an efficiency in terms of work done per person, which stems from energy mostly coming from fossil fuels. The US just happened to get first dibs on the resources, but I doubt it would be any different with others. The societies have a tendency to grow and the only real backpressure is resource exhaustion (manifesting as cost).

[adrianN]

You can also argue that globalization is the root cause for the current stability.

[flyinglizard]

Globalization is simply an extension of the US global policy. Democracy and free trade are rewarded. It’s not a coincidence that globalization speaks English and builds on American infrastructure (such as the very internet).

[Vraxx]

The US supports plenty of undemocratic regimes and has toppled democratic ones. US global policy rewards subservience to the US economy more than anything (which I'd hardly call "free" trade).

[flyinglizard]

That’s mostly true in countries where proper long lasting institutional democracy has no societal feasibility (Saudi Arabia for example).