Is globalization a consequence (result?) of the second law of thermodynamics?

These two chapters have sparked some ideas in my head which I am not sure have been discussed in the literature yet or not. (I am not so vain to think that I am the first to think it however.)

Initially I began thinking about our current economic system (for the most part a globally interconnected, semi-free market), and the multitudinous layers of chance that have lead to its realization. I wondered, "in a thousand (or perhaps a hundred thousand) iterations of our world, with randomized variables of geography, resource availability and concentration distribution, and population development, among others, where would our current situation fit (rank?) among the potential outcomes for our economic system?" In other words, given the many negative issues that we face - overpopulation, vast differences in wealth and comfort, global climate change, and resource depletion - how does our current economic system and our societies rank among many other possible outcomes, given the initial starting conditions? Then I began to consider how the distribution of potential outcomes would look? Would it be normal? Random? Are some potential outcomes more probable than others? (e.g. in some iterations of this world, we could live in small divided countries, each trying to make due with the resources that they possess; in an other iteration, we could potentially live in a nearly equally divided wealth, but with less freedom of thought, movement, or a lack of many of the comforts that we possess now, and so on... one can use their imagination.)

Today, I am thinking about how although the outcomes of the iterations might be disparate, the laws of nature still guide the foundation of economics. The first law (appears to) prevent a Jetsons like utopia of flying cars, push-button jobs, robot maids, and high levels of happiness for all. i.e. There is no free lunch. Does the second law of thermodynamics make the trend towards globalized trade and interdependence a more likely outcome? High concentrations of resources, be it productive land, energy deposits, ores, etc. are distributed over large geographic areas, with some nations (regions) flush with one resource but lacking in another. Is the successfulness of each iteration (not fully defined at this juncture) dependent on how humans are able to extract, consume, and trade resources with each other? Is an economic system in which there are highly concentrated resources that evolve to globally available resources and waste heat/materials, more likely given the entropy law?

There's no denying that humans are a very successful species. Successful to the point, perhaps, of becoming self-limiting. The question is, given the same starting conditions, would we "do it all over again"? Were we predestined (by the laws of thermodynamics) to create the same economic system in place today?