Just for an alternate view.

During the last 250 years, but particularly the last under 200 years, we have seen how mankind has found a new source of energy.

Before that, for centuries, power came from biofuels (mostly wood), human labor, domesticated animals, slaves, wind in the form of ship sails and windmills, and water wheels. And that changed very slowly - as did economic growth.

Then, beginning with the development of the steam engine, power started coming from the use of fossil fuels. And that power transformed the productivity of humans. And they all participated in the results - not equally, but all.

Now we've learned that there may be significant impacts from the byproducts of that new source of energy. And we're struggling with how to cope with that versus reducing standards of living in favor of combatting those changes. Some well developed countries are willing to make some sacrifices to those goals. Most, particularly undeveloped countries, are not. Actions speak louder than words.

Economies thrive or fail on energy. The rich-poor division of results is a secondary effect depending upon how their different views of how to govern interact. That's where human nature enters in.

But first, you must increase energy to increase productivity. Even AI requires more energy.

As I say, just an alternate view. Maybe too simplistic - but I don't think so.