I'm late to my own discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your approach is what I'd term "outcome-agnostic." You believe that the outcome of a societal structure is self-justified, and all outcomes are equally moral. So if the oceans are overfished and we cause mass extinctions of ocean critters, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It's justified by the fact that it happened.

I think you and I fundamentally disagree there. I view a world in which humans have caused mass extinctions as a worse world than one in which we haven't. Even shy of mass extinctions, I believe that it's both possible and desirable to avoid crashing fish populations and having to "wait till they breed back."

I'm pointing this out because I want the specifics of our disagreement to be crystal clear. We may or may not disagree about other things also, but if you're truly outcome-agnostic, then if we argue about those other things, we'll only be talking past each other.