This is not a game of us vs them. There are a LOT of competing interests in the world, which must be addressed by anyone proposing a system to govern global relations. In that sense, I can understand the "order vs chaos" characterization of early men. As the world changes, however, that metaphor loses it's context and the meaning behind it must be rediscovered, so that it can once again be focused in the eyes of the people.
If you apply that busted concept of human created order on the scale of the entire globe through technological force, you're going to near instantly collapse, as is currently happening. You can not escape the need to appeal to people's desire to be participants in whatever comes next. If you can't manage to do that, you will inevitably remain prisoner to a world too fractured to mount any sort of crusades.
Just want to qualify this saying that human created order is not fundamentally busted in my estimation, just the idea of having one central authority in this world for everything is, well, impossible. It's just way beyond the capacity of machines to track everything relevant, accurately. They're not even close.
Any order that will last is a collective effort. However we can manage that…
No shit, we've been screwing with manipulating powers to do things for us for a long time. That ridiculous pageantry can't survive a radical shift in the fundamentals of how the world operates, however.
Either people can learn that they actually do have the ability to make decisions for themselves, or we collapse back to a more primitive form in which the pageantry we demand IS possible, just as Horemheb gave Egypt the god they demanded.
Some dude from NASA did a pretty interesting study on Stonehenge, which hints at how those ancient people may have been looking at the cosmos.
https://archive.org/details/stonehengedecode00gera