I said "risk of deadly instability through destroying most of nature" but really meant to say "high risk of deadly instability through having destroyed most of

I said "risk of deadly instability through destroying most of nature" but really meant to say "high risk of deadly instability through having destroyed most of nature". I.e. we might get ever closer to a world which is sustainable in the sense that humanity doesn't live off limited resources anymore (say, using machines to convert solar power to food more directly than using plants), but where most of nature has been destroyed and hence the possibilities for recovering by falling back to (even temporarily) using reserves increasingly vanishes (no place to build cheap or simple housing anymore, no land or even suitable climate to fall back on using plants as food). Thus all sorts of small crises can each lead to a lot of dying (perhaps like today's famines in Africa, but now all over the world). But you may know more than me and your point may well be true. (I'm not a researcher, just fantasizing. I should get some experience in mathematical modeling.)