Honestly, I would need to read your framework in more detail to properly answer these questions. Do you have something convenient in print?
The name that occurs to me when you say “generative mechanism” is the civilizational theorist Carroll Quigley. Quigley defined the notion of an “instrument of expansion” as essential for a civilization. The interplay of technology and social formations would be included in that. So it’s quite possible your model unpacks Quiglet’s instrument of expansion idea in an analytical way.
With respect to long history, there are interesting questions about why civilizations emerged in parallel in different geographic settings. My readings of Kemp, Turchin, Diamond, Morris and others are largely directed to grasping that. Why India? Why China? Why Egypt? Why Mesopotamia? Why Mesoamerica? Tool using was a human universal all over the planet, but only in selected cases did it contribute to complex, hierarchical, persistent urban formations. What was similar in all these cases? Also, how did they differ?
Forwarding to today’s world, there really is already a just single globalized civilization on the level of socio-technical formations. We can look at specific theories of invention and technical adoption to consider how specific innovations radiate around that global network, but radiate they absolutely do. So to me, the “generative mechanism” question feels more backward-looking - how did we get here? Now … with nothing especially pre-conceived in mind … I’d like to reflect on what “generative mechanism” might mean for a forward-looking perspective on global futures.
Big picture - for humanity to have much of a long-term future - it’s going to have to pivot from exponential material growth to something approaching a steady state based on solar, wind, geothermal and renewable bio-energy. The most useful thing to “generate”, IMO, for that future world is design patterns. Beyond our current crisis moment, humans will need reliable food, water, temperature control and so on. I see desirable approaches to this as combining both high tech and low tech. A dollop of high tech to unlock the potentials of human and animal biotech, which as in pre-industrial societies, we be counted on for more of the work. My guess is that human population will scale down, rather than up. So a Quigley “instrument of expansion” may not be the most apt term for what future civilization needs to emerge. “Instrument of dissemination” maybe. Given improved design patterns for a sustainable socio-technical future, those patterns will need to find their way around the world.
The current geopolitical moment involves regressive actors fighting rear-guard action to assertively prevent the adoption of sustainable design patterns. So apart from inventing a techno-future that works, there is also the political problem of clearing the field for the emerging patterns. My best guess is that smaller nations - isolated to some extent from great power conflict - will experiment and show us all the way. The field for global innovation will be cleared through all the self-harm the great powers are inflicting on themselves by holding fast to obsolete models the laws of physics, among other things, tell us are doomed to fail. Recently I read Andrew Ross Sorkin’s 1929. 2029 may be rather like that.
The most situated question for participants in this forum might be, “what can we do here to generate a sustainable future”? Again, I circle back to “design patterns”. Let the creative juices flow! Come up with an idea. Pilot it. Prove it. Make it available. Regressive forces will try to strangle it in the cradle. Have back ups in more favorable places the tyrants can’t reach. Positive results will speak for themselves. The global network will catch on soon enough.