Key words: discussion, civilizational approach, long-term forecasting, economic development, international relations. The past discussion of articles and the book is very interesting for the authors, who are sincerely grateful to L. B. Alaev, V. A. Melyantsev, N. A. Kosolapov, L. L. Fituni, V. Ya. Belokrenitsky, I. V. Deryugina, N. N. Tsvetkova, who expressed their opinion. The authors are grateful to L. B. Alaev for a careful reading of the book and a detailed analysis of what was written. Leonid Borisovich is undoubtedly right, pointing out that the forecast is based on regions, and not strictly on the belonging of countries to a particular religion, but in applied research it is not so much strict adherence to the principles of certain theoretical constructions that is more important, as the final applied result. In this case, it is a forecast that identifies and clearly shows the main features of the future. In this regard, the civilizational approach is convenient for several reasons. First, the civilizational concept is widely recognized. It divides the world into a small number of parts, the differences between which are recognized by many, if not most, researchers, political and business decision makers, and even the reading public. Grouping countries for the global forecast is a separate big and complex problem, because if you work with individual countries, as UN bodies do, you create a motley picture that needs aggregation, and this is again a return to groupings. If we follow the tradition of global development models, which dates back to the first reports to the Club of Rome, and make calculations for the world as a whole, the results are difficult to interpret. So the set of world civilizations is a convenient grouping of countries of the world for various purposes, and it is quite widely recognized. Secondly, modern world civilizations have an institutional design, although it differs in the degree of rigidity. Japanese, Chinese, and Indian civilizati ... Read more