On common form of denial is to find somebody else to blame. Please take a closer look.....

"We see the world breaking apart,all that our forefathers built with blood and struggles we are giving away in exchange for some more money ,some more luxuries that are supossed to make our lives easy and happier.....
And we end up having to kill each other because resources are limited and finite and run out one day. "

You can understand that and STILL you blame the rich for our crisis?

Two problems. Our industrial civilization based upon extracting many years of fossile resources to supply our "needs" for each year is CLEARLY unsustainable in the long run (we can debate the "when" it collapses). And our societies are unjust, the rich consuming far more than their fair share. Yes indeed, correcting the second problem, having us all share equally in unsustainable consumption WIILL change the date of the collapse, put it off somewhat longer that the date it would have occurred under our current system of inequitable distribution. But ----- we were uncertain about the date in any case.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm with you on eliminating social injustice. But if you think that will prevent ecological crisis and collapse you are crazy. It's all well and good to repeat a mantra like "never enough for greed, always enough for need" till you are blue in the face -- as if it didn't matter whether there were 6 billion of us, 16 billion of us, or 60 billion or 600 billion of us as long as we shared. Maybe you can take faith in stories about loaves and fishes going around -- but what when there is no fuel to cultivate, to convert fertilizer, to run the pumps and no water left in the aquafers to irrigate in any case -- where do the laoves come from then? And where do the fishes come from when the seas have been dragnetted free of life?

Are you willing to face reality NOW?

When the fossile resources are exhausted we will HAVE to live on a sustainable basis. That's not a choice we get to make.

Given some sustainable level of production possible there's an equation for the other side with terms like "level of consumption", "how fairly distributed", "how much if any of the environment is reserved for non-human life", AND "how many of us humans".

Here we get to make some choices. We can choose to live "more simply" but not below what it takes to survive and in fact, not below the level where that adversely affects sustainable production (because that COULD happen, depending upon our choices of sustainable technology).

We can choose to eliminate social injustice and share fairly. But that's a one time fix, can't keep making improvements there becasue you can't do better than totally fair distribution (again you have to consider where efforts might adversely affect sustainable production).

We can choose to leave very little of the wild, but there are uncertainties about when THAT might gte to the point of adversely affecting sustainable production. Besides, some of us probably feel taking it all for ourselves is as unjust as when we do this to other humans (THEY at least can fight back agaisnt us on more or less equal terms).

We can choose to control our numbers. There, I've said it, the horrible "P" word. But you know, those who say we can't memntion "population" are claiming that there IS a soution to the equation S = C * F * H * P

If "C" is the lowest reasonable consumption for survival, "F" the coefficient of unfairness (can't be less than one), "H" the inverse percentage of the enviornment used for human purposes (again can't be less than one), and "P" the population --- maybe there ISN'T a product equal to or less that "S", the maximium sustainable production under those conditions. Well you can't lower "C" (or people die), cna't do better than entirely fair, can't take more of the environment than all of it --- that leaves just "P" to be adjusted.

You believe the value of "P" can be 6 billion or greater, then I understand why you would concern yourselves about the rich. But WHY do you believe that? (where are your numbers as opposed to your ideological faith). And if you believe "P" is going to turn out to be something like 2 billion, 1 billion, a half billion, or even just a few hundred million (and yes, there ARE published estimates that pessimistic) why are you worrying about the rich taking more than their fair share (a problem yes, but NOT the one that's going to make us kill each other)