This is absolutely stunning. You've taken a lot of the premises I actually consider to be accurate (e.g. history isn't an unending upward march; our modern world may just be a brief exception rather than 'the final station'; long-established attitudes will have much more staying power than new-fangled trends) -- but you've put a completely different soin on it than I would have. Truly exceptional!
Well, in my opinion there was something of mix-up in this map between long-established attitudes and new-fangled trends--for instance, I would argue that globalization and global trade integration date back much,
much farther than merely the Columbus Exchange, which was only something of a final step in the process. As long as civilization has existed, trade has spread its fingers as far as it could reach, for both non-essential and essential items; the Sumerians were dependent on trade for wood, stone, and metals, for instance, which are not found in great abundance or quality in Mesopotamia, so that in some ways they were just as dependent on trade as we are. If the trade routes of Sumeria, of Egypt, of Rome and China and Arabia and so on and so forth did not reach all the way around the globe, that was more because they were not able, rather than not willing.
So economic globalization seems to be about the most durable trend in existence, to me, and I really can't see a world which
voluntarily pulls back from it. I could see a world
forced to pull back from it, perhaps, as with the Bronze Age Collapse, or where technological advances shift the pattern of trade routes so dramatically that there's an intermediate period where the world
seems to be withdrawing from it (which may also have been the case with the Bronze Age Collapse in part, as ironworking technology removed the need for long-distance tin trading), but the scenario as presented seems to indicate that people
chose to stop trading with each other, which seems incredibly unlikely to me in light of the above.
The same with the abandonment of the idea of the Universal Empire, which also dates back far before the Johnny-come-latelies in Europe (who anyway never really embraced universalism). As early as Sargon of Akkad you had conquerers who liked to claim that they ruled the whole Earth, or at least all of it that mattered, and the idea of setting up some kind of universal system of the world that encompasses everyone to a greater or lesser extent is one that shows up again and again in a wide variety of cultures and in a wide range of times. Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Arabia, China: all have at some time or another claimed to be or at least to be trying to be a universal empire, and in many cases not wholly inaccurately. If none of them were actually able to construct a truly global dominion, that again has more to do with the limitations of their technologies, social systems, and organizations than with any unwillingness to do so.
Again, this seems to be one of the most durable trends in existence. I can see in
practical terms the idea of Universal Empire being abandoned as infeasible, but I cannot really see the
intellectual abandonment of the concept to any real degree. The successors of Rome didn't reject the universalism of Rome: they sought to rebuild it, and merely failed. The same goes, of course, for the successors to the Caliphate and the Empire of Cyrus and so on and so forth in many other places as well. I could certainly see the global order breaking down, but I don't think that any concepts of "Civilizationism" which explicitly deny universalism would actually become mainstream, because they go against this very long-standing grain of establishing hegemonies and empires as large as possible, which then naturally tend to assimilate local cultures into a larger whole. Far more likely, to my mind, would be squabbles over which power or powers should build the
new global order, now that the old one has vanished, the way that Europeans fought over who was going to have the legacy of Rome or the Chinese over who was going to rule. But I don't see that there would be any really serious debate over whether there is or ought to be a global order in the first place, just the same way that it was taken for granted for a
very long time that there
ought to be a Universal Empire over Europe or an Empire of China.
