Change --- What Is It Good For?

I enjoyed this week's soliloquy, and can see how there is an important social theoretical question surrounding Agency vs Structure. That said, as a practical matter, using war as the case study seemed to make the case that Agency in international relations might be quite limited.  I say that because the case was made fairly convincingly (at least to me) that because fundamental change has not occurred to war over the thousands of years of recorded history, the level of agency must be quite low. Therefore, war, possibly the most basic form of interaction between countries and indeed the reason many states formed (to defend their societies from a war), is structural. So then, if this most basic interaction is structural, how much of international relations is subject to a high level of agency?

Going into the 2x2 matrix, I loved how it was pointed out that just because there is autonomy, there is not necessarily agency because of the possible constraints put on that autonomy. I tend to fall into the upper right quadrant (surprise, surprise), where change may occur, but only as interests rationally adjust to reality. I appreciate the argument that if sovereign states are the organizing units of international relations then change is all but impossible; however we do see in some cases (E.U. former 13 British colonies) where sovereign states see their interests are rationally aligned and allow for change in their sovereignty.

Being a big fan of science fiction, I have a little more of an understanding of terms / ways of thinking about a post sovereign state-world. However my time studying international relations has taught me that absent an existential threat humans are unwilling to change the way they do things. So it would take a clear threat with the potential to wipe out humanity in order to get to a point where we would be willing to set aside our 'us vs them' mentality towards each other, and direct it elsewhere.