People said the same thing in the late and early 20th century before ww1 and ww2. They were wrong.
> If you read it, you will realize that all of civilization is fundamentally based on global markets and the global shipping of crude oil and other resources.
Modern nations are dependent on oil for sure. That's what ww1 and ww2 was fought over.
> In the long run, all countries have to work together or modern society will fail.
That's fundamentally not true. Certain nations, like the US, don't have to work with anyone. We are one of the few nations who have enough resources ( including oil ) to keep our civilization running. If you expand the US to include the anglo-nations ( Canada, Australia, etc ), then we are more than able to keep our society running without the rest of the world.
> In a nutshell, we live in an essentially transnational society and this cannot change unless you're willing to give up almost all of modern technology.
What? Maybe if you are denmark or iceland, but that doesn't hold true for the US.
Also, your entire argument is about international trade, not transnationalism. You need nations to have international trade.
And as I said, your argument isn't new. It's been long debunked. The same argument was made in the midst of pax britannica before ww1 and ww2. People argued that nations were too dependent on each other for wars to break out. Hell, people argued that germany would never attack the soviet union since most of germany's oil/resources came from the soviet union.
The current international system will continue as long as nations deem it beneficial to themselves. If it ceases to be, then it will end.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about any system. And I highly doubt china, russia and much of the world will adhere to the US/European led international system for much longer.
Pax americana will come to an end like all "pax" in the past. Instead of clinging to silly utopian transnationalism, we should be preparing ourselves for a multipolar nationalistic world.
The post ww2 era is an anomaly in human history where one nation ruled the world. The only comparable situation in human history was the mongol empire where mongol's established direct or indirect control over pretty much all of eurasia. That system crumbled also.