Imagine being stranded on a small island. The island only has a few coconut trees, no fish or other vegetation or other food sources; coconuts are the only source of food. Furthermore, in about two weeks, it will be the full moon. The island is a vanishing one - the island submerges during the full and new moon. In other words, you have two choices:

1. Keep eating the coconuts from coconut trees, and sink and die as the island submerges during the upcoming full moon.
2. Cut the coconut trees and make them into a raft. This will cut down your food source. But hopefully, if you know or learn how to make a good raft, you might survive!

The scenario might seem artificial, but turns out to be very real. What do I mean?

Consider that life as we know it is stranded on the planet Earth.

1. If we do just the bare minimum to keep ourselves surviving, some day, some cosmic event will eventually wipe us out. It happened with dinosaurs, remember?
2. Alternatively, we could extract resources from our environment. Lacking omniscience, we do not know what the effect of our resource extraction will be. Perhaps, it might trigger events that themselves either harm us or even lead to the very extinction we are trying to avoid!

It is not even a case of underdeveloped science. Science provides the how to of reasoning over nature. The over what are the specific scenarios that occur in the particular natural habitat. It doesn’t take rocket science to realize that the release of trapped $CO_2$, methane, or microbes can pose a threat as a mine is excavated. However, no amount of science can tell us that there is trapped $CO_2$, methane or microbes in the mine. That requires exploring or inspecting the environment. Furthermore, can pose a threat does not mean will pose a threat. And again, lacking omniscience, it is not possible to make perfect predictions.

Rapid resource extraction – which does not bother or even denies inspecting the side-effects of the particular resource extraction – will thus eventually lead to environmental collapse. It would merely be luck that a civilization survives any particular length of rapid resource extraction.

How rapid?

Rapid enough that the resulting environmental collapse triggers events on a scale the civilization cannot deal with. Climate change is one example.

The alternative?

Slow down.

How slow?

In other words, if the civilization can make do with the resources it already has at hand, it should avoid extracting more resources. At the same time, it should develop its scientific understanding as well as explore its environment to better understand the effects of particular resource extractions. As the knowledge of these effects becomes available, only then, should it extract the resources. However, it will be competing against the cosmic events. But hopefully, “industrialization and modernization” over a span of 40,000 years rather than 400 years can easily be a sweet spot that does both

1. Develop tools to overcome the cosmic event.
2. Don’t harm oneself or go extinct by environmental collapse triggered by rapid resource extraction.

Extremely unequal distribution of resources not insufficiency is the root of modern global problems.

the richest 1% of humanity now produce as much carbon as the poorest two-thirds combined. Likewise, the top 10% of emitters account for half of all global $CO_2$

The civilization must optimize the use of its resources to meet the needs of its individuals and develop science and environmental knowledge while trying not to extract further resources. Any growth, development, or betterment that stems from resource extraction instead of optimization is a short-sighted move that can will pose an extinction threat to the civilization.

Note that resource optimization has to be carried out at the scale of civilization, particularly amongst its top resource extractors. Resource optimization amongst the bottom resource extractors without the top is futile. In case this is not obvious, suppose:

• Group A comprising 1 billion people consume 90 units of a resource
• Group B comprising 9 billion people consume 10 units of a resource

Combined, the two groups consume 100 units of the resource.

What will happen if group B starts consuming 50% less resources? Naively, 90% people consuming 50% less resources sounds like a great win! However -

• Group A will still consume 90 units
• Group B will consume 5 units

Combined, the two groups still consume 95 units of the resource. The resource saving is a mere 5%, extraordinarily different from the intuition generated by “90% people consuming 50% less resources”.

What will happen if group A starts consuming 50% less resources?

• Group A will consume 45 units
• Group B will continue to consume 10 units

Combined, the two groups consume 55 units of the resource! A conservation of 45% resources is resulted from merely 10% of the top resource extractors cutting their extractions in half.

Inequality itself is not a problem; extreme inequality of the above kind is. It is not a mere “problem of ethics” we can disagree over but a “survival problem” that will kill everyone. It will lead to extinction.

Here’s a short lunch-time video to convey the concrete effects of what abstract “2C” rise in average temperature means.

Here’s another

Care to be the saviors who cut the resource extraction and consumption in half?