This suggests there's nothing "inevitable" about conquest as a feature of history, and that the "artificial" is not, so to speak, a natural feature of human life.
Does he envision a world population of 6 billion people divided into small groups that never so much as step on one another's toes? This seems like typical libertarian blindness to the reality of power.
I think we are as a rule far better off with national sovereignty, regional autonomy, family rights and individual rights than with centralism. Centralism is favoured mostly by coalitions who represent only a minority in their home communities but can conspire at the centre to force policies on others they'd never get away with on their own.
There are less and less languages, less religion, more interethnic, interracial, and international interaction (commerce, communication, travel, sex, and habitation). There are many nations in the world, but trade blocs, military pacts, and diplomatic organizations have made them less sovereign.
Human civilization has been moving toward singularity since it began. The end of tribes, clans, and families, the end of communities, and the end of class and money itself is our destiny.
Ango, that's stupid commiespeak. Don't let historically contemporary trends confuse you into thinking these are unshakable trends leading us to our destiny. Ash's comment is more realistic.
From what I can tell, technology plays the most important role in centralization/decentralization. With more of the world becoming digital and more encryption services for everyday people, the PTB can only control legal tender, guns and food. And even then, it might get tricky. (just speculation!)