Agreed about the fact that collective action will be the solution. But about resources it is true that we can harvest them in a less destructive manner, will th

Agreed about the fact that collective action will be the solution. But about resources it is true that we can harvest them in a less destructive manner, will that be enough? Or do we also need to harvest less of them? The gap we need to bridge is to harvest in such a less destructive manner that 1) they can regenerate themselves at the same rate as we harvest them, making our civilisation actually sustainable 2) they don't harm us directly indeed. Can we bridge that gap by harvesting in a less destructive manner? 1) How is the phosphorus - vital for our current food system - that we harvest in mines concentrated for us during billions of years going to regenerate? Same for oil, gas, rare metals, all the silicon and metal that we disperse in our devices etc etc going to regenerate themselves? Should we bet on our ability to figure that out in the next 30-50 years? 2) so far the rate at which we harm ourselves due to the amount of garbage we throw at nature (i.e. everything we make, build and reject) has only increased with progress. Should we bet we are going to reverse that just with technology in the next 30-50 years? If we lose the bet, the consequences are never seen in history.... I'd rather bet on more reliable methods to survive...