> The last time the world had multi-polarity, we had far more wars. Including the worst wars the world has ever seen.

Citations? Simply saying that World War 1 happened during a time of multi-polarity is just begging the question. Multi-polarity of varying degrees has always been the case throughout human history, and often times single-polarity is achieved only through extreme violence.

I think this is too simplistic of an outlook. The post-Napoleonic balance of powers was not uni-polar, it was a carefully constructed and negotiated settlement by diplomats and politicians who knew the cost of war, and it lasted a remarkable 99 years. There were skirmishes in the interim, but the balance of power ensured that the bloodletting never escalated to the point of continent-spanning "world" war...until it did.

Pax Americana, by contrast, was essentially a standoff between ideological opposites that were equipped with enough nuclear weapons to assure mutual destruction. The choices were clear - coexist or die, and there were many opportunities where we narrowly escaped the second option.

You could point to many possible causes of WW1, but I think that a lot of the causes can be traced back to a hot-headed emperor who desired a larger and more prestigious empire but lacked the statecraft to do so without pissing off nearly all of his neighbors. Looking around at our world today at the number of unserious leaders who govern like a bull in a china shop, I would be lying if I didn't see any similar causes for concern.

This is not news, I had "the multi polar world" in history class in high school in the early 2000s, it's just that the US suddenly realized it and has been blind to the change for a while.

The theory that humans are evil to one another and that this behavior has been going on since the dawn of time has shaky grounds. David Graeber looks for alternative explanations in his book [1] The Dawn of Everything.

https://davidgraeber.org/books/the-dawn-of-everything-a-new-...

Can we at least distinguish between descriptive and normative?

So for example addressing climate change might be perceived as treason if it gets in the way of optimizing economic interests?

So when slave trade advances citizens' economic prospects it's moral imperative for the country to facilitate it, right?

I don't want to fight against decades of State propaganda and indoctrination, but do you realise that by "men" they were not referring to black slaves or Mexicans in Texas or California or native Americans(the best Indian in the dead Indian).

well, from my perspective in an occupied Territory, it has to defied and sent home.

stated intent goes nowhere to the harm done.

You mean, the fiction is there. They did use a lot of nice words, but the reality is a bunch of slave owners creating a society controlled by oligarchs.

> The intent is there.

The declaration of independence was written by one of the wealthiest slave owners in the country. "Moral imperative" was certainly not behind the american revolution. The economic interests of the elites were. There are no saints in politics. Just interests - mostly of the elites.