just to poke a couple of holes in the argument(s):
#1 present (or past) system of government:
a violent authoritarian superpower that carries out a mass continental/international genocide.
[not advocating this, but very easy to imagine]
#2 future governments:
failure to imagine a type of government or social movements/disruptions that could lead to them is not evidence that they can not emerge.
the problem with journalists (as the one who wrote the article you linked to) is that, for the mostpart (99.9%), they don't have the basic training in science or philosophy to make the sort claims that they do. everything for them is a story, constructed from anecdotal experiences and contorted by layers and layers of personal bias that they have no idea of. it can work fairly when analyzing a fairly simple topic like the prospects of the LA lakers next season, but usually fails when on larger scale.
it's OK to be pessimistic (i am), but you have to express it in terms of vague probabilities, not any sort of precise absolutes.
p.s. i would add that i see the big problem as one of culture (~75%) rather than politics.