I think all of your points are valid, but I'm not convinced that there is only one best solution worth pursuing. For instance, reframing the issue as a problem

I think all of your points are valid, but I'm not convinced that there is only one best solution worth pursuing. For instance, reframing the issue as a problem with the distribution of resources makes sense, but I wonder to what extent the actual problem is people's unwillingness to distribute themselves; i.e. go closer to where the resources are. People want to live where the people are; where the things and the jobs are, and it's these overpopulated urban / industrial centers that people collect in which have the large environmental footprints. Basically, the population is sustainable if people decide to change their values; move out of cities, distribute themselves across the available land, participate in self-sufficient local economies / work remotely, etc. I just don't believe that betting on people changing according to some timeline to be a winning bet.