Ok this got deep quickly, but fine by me. I agree there are plenty of things to criticize with our present systems, be they democratic or autocratic. I mention "autocratic" only to show that one can't easily dispel that latter form of government yet (on a global scale it is verily on the rise again). Wage labor economy: yes, true representative democracy: no. That ideal only exists to a some degree in a relative few countries that have no beef with the current sole superpower.
As for disruptions in social/technological matters, there is no denying that we live in interesting times, but as always it is perilous to ascertain if most relevant things are the same, or some things are the same, or no such things are the same as before (sameness is notoriously difficult to assess, at the extreme one might argue that all discernible things are ultimately if not categorically different).
We can however unequivocally state that the argument (that things are now categorically different) has been heard before, many times, and has always turned out to be largely false - self interested deceptions even. Recent history has the "new economy" around the turn of the century claiming that everyone would from now be rich because internet, even more recently the crypto currency claims of a new social order. Going back a few hundred years we had the emerging laissez faire economists claiming that a totally free economy without state interventions would lead to world peace, a claim parroted by the socialists (socialism would lead to peace). Later the women's rights movement made the same claim - if only women would be in charge then ...
Make what one will out of this, to me it is but one long list of falsehoods and half truths, and I've personally swiveled back to a position which is close to that of classical economy: humans are essentially (in a statistical mean sense) self interested, and will from that simple fact come into conflict with both other humans, the environment and the common good - and will skew everything in their perceived favor unless there are appropriate checks and balances. This is the ultimate factual circumstance that I see no sign of changing in the foreseeable future - through technological breakthroughs or anything else. We are still essentially in the age of the founding fathers in that regard.
As for peace, the only path that has proven to be successful is the ad hoc and "organic" creation of ever larger political units: neighboring villages that were at each others throats during prehistory made friends under the rule of warlords, warlords became friends under the rule of a feudal power, feudal powers became friends after the conquest by empires, empires morphed into global trade organizations that requires global legal frameworks to work efficiently. That in my mind is incidentally the breakthrough for global peace that one might hope for in the next few hundred years - if we can keep the belligerents on all sides in sufficient check while global inequalities in power and wealth are evened out through ever more trade and international cooperation.
But right now the odds seem to be that we blow everything up before that TBH.