There are two kinds of elites - warmongers and "peacemongers". Before steam machines (industrial revolution) (knowledge), wars were the only way to achieve some insignificant wealth and power. After that (paradigm shift), new massive and insane possibilities of neverending production have made possible to accumulate equally insane amounts of wealth. It has become far more economical not to organize wars, physically threaten other people (your potential workers and consumers) and grab territories (instantly, you can even become - "the good"). Much easier is to grab wealth and power in peace. You don't need to deal with always revolting and ideologically infected conquered people as much as before, there is so much wealth you can bestow to buy social peace); and moreover, you can marginalize competing fellow warmonger elites. Of course, there's no clear distinction between mentioned era-doctrines and elites (modern social mobility allows movements between the types of elites, as well as possibility for ex-slaves becoming elites); we can only say which one prevails in our age (wars are always options). Sudden and heavy drops in wealth and energy means going back to the previous doctrine. Anyhow, elites are always needed, are always there, because masses cannot lead themselves! An eagle and a lion are going where they want, a cow can be led even by a human child.
Although, CIV4 (shiny and brutal game at the same time) promotes linear concept of history (constant progress, "the end of history"), it also consists of this paradigm shift (harder, ineffective wars, inward problems, Liberalism, Scientific method, Corporations, Communism (a weak try are Guilds - trade unions from the Middle ages vs. Patricians (oligarchic elites), Fascism (an example of birds of prey, elites from the old era trapped in the cage of the new era with different conditions and possibilities)...). By the way, CIV4 sees eurocentric Middle ages as the step forward from the Antiquity. Theoretician Oswald Spengler thought it was a new start, with totally different world view, values, thoughts on nature, Technics, sense of life, purposes and goals. Once these are exhausted, culture life dies (together with moral fiber - will to do necessary), and new one starts all over again.
In regard to the video, it would be suspicious to have something like art for art's sake, science just for science, etc... As Spengler said, architects, engineers and innovators don't build, construct and innovate things for the sake of common usefulness, but rather for their own delight and will to power, it cannot be stopped... until it functions. To win culturally, you still probably need to provoke others to go to war. And even go to war against anyone who is disturbing possibilities and conditions for your cultural victory. Every scientific development and leadership almost presupposes some kind of first war, war in the beginning... if not the next war, too. I mean, it's hard to look at something from another point of view other then from the view of the whole.
I think that the whole magic of Civ is that You don't have to win to enjoy it ! It's like someone wise once said "It's the journey in itself not the destination that makes it all worthwile" so I've told myself that "it would be better for my people not to go to war" and I've immersed myself into the game - imagining myself being in my Civ's nation leader's shoes and tried to do what's best for my people. Thinking of them not as drones to do my bidding but as a people that need guidance and I catered to their needs and their wellbeing 
Civ makes it all possible: You can be a warmonger, a pacemaker, a world's policeman, builder, destroyer, benevolet, malevolent or even any mix of them all xD It's the see of possibilities like that making this game great. 
