Well since you put so much into that, I'll at least respond to it. :) A few disorganized thoughts:

Your talking about China and their long-term vs. short-term view is interesting. I wonder if that is actually part of the problem. Saying that something is for "the greater good" or "the long-term good" can be used to justify both horrific atrocities and gradual injustices. Combined with an evil government wanting to maintain the status quo and continue exploiting its people, it seems like a recipe for disaster--and that seems to be the case.

Related to that, I think history demonstrates that centralized planning and control doesn't work (outside of the military). We humans think we can understand how enormous, complex, interrelated, global systems work, and that we can predict the future--but we can't. We can only predict the weather a few days ahead, and that far from perfectly. We certainly can't predict our own behavior.

In contrast, what does work--as far as creating prosperity--is decentralization and self-determination. One reason, I think, is that it is easier to make plans and predictions on a smaller scale. Another is that self-determination helps motivate people, leading to entrepreneurship, research, etc. But centralized planning and control has the opposite effect, demotivating people--another effect that UBI would have. That then requires bread and circuses--something we have in spades today with electronic media.

I would respectfully caution you against vilifying capitalist, consumer nations and populaces. It does seem true that less-developed nations are exploited through cheaper labor and fewer regulations, but on the other hand, if all of those jobs were pulled back domestically, how would that affect the third-world? I don't think anyone knows whether that would actually result in an improvement in their living conditions--although it would surely reduce the unemployment rate in the first-world ones.

But my point is that the way you talk about consumers being junkies implies that innocent people who are simply living normal lives in their respective places are responsible for poverty and hunger around the world. The truth is that those nations were in poverty and hunger hundreds of years ago, before these consumer, capitalist nations became prosperous. And prosperous, first-world nations do tremendous charity work, feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and helping the poor in undeveloped nations.

It just sounds like a guilt trip against prosperous nations. And while there are some overly wealthy people in control of giant corporations who exploit people all over the world, the average person living in a first-world country is not causing hunger and poverty around the world. In fact, they often do a lot to help it.

But this "capitalism is evil and consumers are guilty" narrative is popular now. The truth is that people have the capacity for evil, and power tends to corrupt. Capitalism at least compartmentalizes the potential for evil, compared to centralized forms of government and economy like communism. Although globalization and technology are having their own effects on it. Nothing is stable--the system is in constant flux. That's another reason we can't really understand it, and another reason to compartmentalize.

As for us being on the brink of self-destruction--I honestly don't understand that idea. As technology develops, our ability to live efficiently and overcome a wider range of problems increases. Nuclear annihilation seems less likely than before.

Some people are still living in hunger and poverty. That has always been the case. It always will be. Why? Because evil exists. Because there will always be evil governments who oppress and exploit their people.

That does not mean that the entire human race is going to cease to exist. That's just ridiculous. That's absurd, sky-falling propaganda and fearmongering.

What you should be asking yourself is, why are some people pushing that FUD? The answer is simple: as I said, evil exists, people want to control and exploit others, and the cheapest way to do that is to convince people that they are responsible for killing us all, and therefore need to submit to their new overlords who will avert the crisis of global cooling/global warming/climate change/mass extinction/economic collapse/economic injustice/etc. Propaganda is cheaper than weapons, so convincing people to willingly submit is more cost-effective than forcing them to.

Don't fall for it. Don't fall into their trap.