You will have to formalize the logic/processes of the societal ecosystems for your world, not just once but in an expanding trend of complexity, often with very different branches of 'the way things work' as well as overlap when the different aspects can work under different systems.

That is alot of logic which then you will have to create all the objects which the players manipulate which fit into that whole logic system and then interact withing the different 'set of rules' of all those variations.

Look at the way Sid Meiers did Civilization when most of the game mechanics were quite rigid/simple and most 'exceptional' real world things really only had small differences to a limited number of game mechanic factors.

Double the number of factors/aspects you are trying to simulate and at least quadruple the complexity (a square law).

Try to make things closer to reality (as to their outcomes for a variety of things you want give the player freedom with) and we are talking magnitudes more complexity.

As your world gets more complex (as it develops) ceratisn things come into existance as being possible and effect every other aspect effecting your world inhabitants.

Next is 'the others' - the behavior of the non-player entities which the player will play against will have to be able to WORK those same game mechanics in at least a plausible way (strategies and tactics and planning and motives) which may be the hardest of all to 'make real' (enuf). And again, as a developing world, the rules change as time goes on for that 'opponent' logic to have to handle.

If we had the power to create and mold a world with our own cynical and thoughtful desires, with each decision we make having consequences and greatness. Will we be able to survive through the consequences and prosperity of industrialization, with it’s pollution of our natural environment with which our feet stand, bodies breathe and survive off of. With an age of great technological advancements, can we build a world that will survive through the eras of time or crumble from the wrongful decisions of those in charge?

In Rise of a World, players will start with a small Hamlet with only fifty citizens, as they work to grow into a Metropolis as great as Miami, or a prospering Mega City like New York. They will have to survive off the resources of the world, as they progress and turn their small population of fifty into a city of thousands or even millions of citizens and become a booming city of economic, environmental, militaristic, or technological superpower.

Conquer those that stand in your way, form a mighty nation of your own beliefs and desires, and shape this world into what you want most. Subjugate those that get in your way, or simply destroy them and taking all that they have built for yourself. Can you build a world that will survive through time, or will you fail like we have already before?

I assume you are looking for a critique of your pitch. I'm not critiquing your idea; I'm critiquing your pitch.

Your first sentence is an unresolved conditional. It starts with "if," but never says "then." You can fix that by deleting "with" and change "having" to "has." But the second part of your sentence is just a truism (it's true regardless of the first part of the sentence).

In the second sentence, "it's" should be "its." And the second sentence ends with nonsensical phrases: "with which our feet stand," and "bodies breathe and survive off of." You need to work more on that sentence. Third sentence: "eras of time" is redundant.

In your second paragraph, delete every instance of the word "will" - it'll make the game seem more real in the mind of the listener.

Your final sentence implies that our species has already been through an extinction event or something. If you're referring to global warming and pollution that killed off mankind (or could) - or the rise of global terrorism, say so. It's unclear what failure you're referring to (other than the earlier reference to pollution).