Thing is, Europe hasn’t been dominating the world the past few centuries; truthfully, European geopolitical pre-eminence only really became a thing in the 19th Century, and it was soon replaced by American pre-eminence in the 20th.
From the 15th Century up until the mid 18th Century, you basically had the Spanish Empire focused on the New World, Portugal’s Atlantic Slave Trade, and several other European powers with some combination of Caribbean colonies and trading outposts; the great Empires of the East (Qing, Mughal, Ottoman, etc) far surpassed Europe in economic power. Aside from the British East India Company doing their thing, “European dominance” just wasn’t really a thing until the Industrial Revolution blew the doors open in the mid 19th Century, resulting in things like the Scrambles for China and Africa. This was born the Age of Colonial Imperialism.
And, almost just as soon as the “European Age” got underway, it fell apart in the World Wars. Even as said conflicts and interwar period also represented the apex of European military domination of non- Europe (carving up the Ottoman remnants, occupying Iran, briefly taking Ethiopia, etc), it also saw the US emerge as the dominant financial power (during WWI), followed by the US and USSR dominating Europe outright militarily.
All told, the “rise of the West” narrative often gives an inaccurate picture of the 16th and 17th Centuries, at least in terms of how the global economy worked, who had influence over whom, and of the logistical and military capabilities of the relevant powers of the time. More troubling, the “decline of the rest” narrative -- whether talking about China, World Islam, Africa, or what have you -- often begins their take far too early, often resulting in very slanted and unhelpful readings on non-western history of this period. The periods we should want to look at here are far more narrow: the 18th and, especially, 19th Centuries.
Anyway, just thought I’d offer that.