This might be heavy going.

In 1968 a guy called Garrett Hardins wrote an essay entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons". Although I came across the Essay in the mid '80s, the premise of the essay is more relevant that ever.
The essay demonstrates that when natural resources are held in common, freely available to everyone for the taking, the incentives that normally direct human activity lead people to steadily increase their exploitation of the resources until they are inadequate to meet human needs. The exploiters generally do not intend to cause any harm; they are merely taking care of their own needs, or others in want. Nevertheless, the entire system moves to disaster. Everyone in the world shares in the resulting tragedy of the commons.
Imagine the world and its resources as a nearly empty lifeboat, rescuing a drowning shipwreck victim causes benefit: It saves the life of the victim, and it adds another person to help manage the boat. But in a lifeboat loaded to the brink, rescuing another victim makes the boat sink and causes only harm: Everyone drowns. The scarcity of space on the boat causes a dramatic shift in social and moral responsibility
Today, our standard of living, our economic system, and the political stability of our planet all require the increasing use of energy and natural resources. In addition, much of our political, economic, and social thinking needs a continuous expansion of economic activity, with little or no restraint on our use of resources. We all feel entitled to grow richer every year. Social justice requires an expanding pie to share with those who are less fortunate. Progress is growth; the economies of developed nations
require steady increases in consumption.

But every environment is finite.

Technology can extend but not eliminate limits. At a certain point, the members of an increasing population become so crowded that they stop benefiting each other; by damaging the environment that supports everyone, by limiting the space available to each person, and by increasing the amount of waste and pollution, their activity begins to cause harm... And if the population and the demands of existing population continues to expand, its material demands may so severely damage the environment as to cause a tragedy of the commons, the collapse of both environment and society.
I am not asking anyone to agree with the premise that continued survival of humanity requires a complete review of emotive human morals and not to do so would be moral failure.
What is important is that the scenario envisaged by Hardin be at the very least debated.