> wealth differences are hopefully shrinking

Doesn't that just mean multiple superpowers? Do you think co-operation on topics such as global warming will increase, or decrease, with such competition?

Inequality and power imbalances are not great in any kind of relationship. Same goes for international relationships.

Shit, the reason we didn't end up in global thermonuclear war is because the USSR and USA were roughly equal in their ability to render sterile large parts of the world. MAD was the ultimate equality in the darkest Strangelovian way.

Look at how Russia has acted since it stopped being a superpower. It's far more unpredictable, but at a regional level not global. They can't really do global anymore.

And is MAD improved by having more participants? Maybe throw in one or two religious death cult states?

Pretending there is a general rules that applies equally to all roles of "relationship" is naive, an idealistic oversimplification of international politics.

> Look at how Russia has acted since it stopped being a superpower.

so let's give them more nukes and money to calm them down? or alternatively, don't let any new Russias emerge.

Does it matter? Unless you are suggesting that we should actively try to maintain a wealth differential across the globe, it will just be what it will be. And I do not think that a single factor will be deciding, there will be most likely various ways to shape all kinds of policies.

If humanity it to survive, then yes it matters. And it's better global conditions improve via cooperative trade, then opportunistic trade e.g. weapons sales.

I fail to see the relation, what has less wealthy nations catching up reducing wealth inequality to do with the survival of humanity and arms trades?

do you fail to see how global warming relates the survival of humanity?

I detect a veiled authoritarian tendency in your posts, or I may be reading it wrongly.

What I read between the lines is that cooperation and coordination on topics such as global warming are only possible with a dominant west?

As a person with western origin I would not want the west to falter or disappear - don’t get me wrong.

But the west does not own the key to bringing good into the world.

Is the assertion of western global dominance the only way to solve world problems? My question is not rhetorical. Just grappling with this question should be productive.

I detect a veiled personal attack, stay on topic and keep it civil please. I didn't offer any labels for myself, nor subscribe to them.

I don't provide any blueprint for successful cooperation, I'm just saying increasing the wealth of any random nation for the sake of it (or something about equality) ignoring context or impact doesn't make sense. It didn't need to be "the west", and many would consider Russia to be western, it just needs to be a political unit capable of progress on issues of the commons.

I have heard that angle of argument recently (that distribution/diversity for the sake of it is not inherently better) and must concede it is worth considering.

But in this case, it is about actual companies that have been successful and proven it. That in itself is rather a celebration of the western concept that ideas and the private pursuit of them can yield successful outcomes that are an improvement to the world vs. them not being there.

Increasing the wealth of a random nation for the sake of it? Or something about equality? Seriously? Would you say the same thing if you were on the less wealthy side? No worries, it is fine to be poor, I understand that this is necessary to keep the world turning.

is "less wealthy" and "poor" the same thing? Is the wealth of a nation the same as equality of wealth within that nation?

These are actual questions i'd specifically want you to answer, since you seems not to be engaging in good faith.

[delayed]