So I'm seconding this:
None of the above. The best-case POD is Britain does not annex Egypt in 1881. As a result the Second Imperialism becomes a global China, with direct rule confined to parts of Asia but most influence economic. This renders the major economic growth that spurred the pre-WWI arms race a much slower process, meaning that the World Wars are measurably delayed and the impact of colonialism is merely bad, not catastrophic. As a result, spared the horrors of colonialism and with European wars much shorter and less brutal due to economic and logistical limits in the absence of the big direct-rule Empires, by 2011 the world is measurably better-off.
I'm quite sceptical about this scenario...I mean, why the lack of direct rule of Egypt by Britain would necessarily prevent Scramble for Africa (and Asia, for that matter)?
At 1880s the transition from "informal imperialism" of control through military influence and economic dominance to that of direct rule was already inevitable IMO: Europeans had charted the Nile from its source, traced the courses of the Niger, Congo and Zambezi Rivers, and realized the vast resources of Africa. Moreover, even from as early as 1869, Belgium, France, and Portugal had made treaties with several African chiefs and acquired sufficient territories to form the basis for their respective direct-rule colonies.
The best way to prevent the rise of New Imperialism would be by prevent the unification of Germany and Italy, and modernization of Japan...thus preventing their rise to become world's great powers. And even better, dismantle the power of France and Russia (balkanize them after Napoleonic Wars, maybe?).
That should be enough to kept the Europeans busy in internal affairs at the heart of Europe, and giving the Africans, Muslims, and Chinese MUCH longer time to reform and adapt themselves without European direct-rule. Not to mention that the British would have no problem to continue their "informal imperialism" in India and elsewhere...