Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to reduce their carbon footprint by not eating meat, living in a tent or staying in one place their entire lives then be my guest, just don't regress the whole of humanity by mandating it.
What kind of argument is this? Is this the Christian argument that God gave us fossil fuels and all the rest, therefore mine, drill, and "burn baby, burn"? I'd think Christians would see this GIFT of life and a planet as part of a charge to take care of it.
The evidence-based view is that we live on a rocky spheroid which condensed from space-dust and asteroids forged in long-gone stars. There is no "placement" of resources, nor is there any inherent purpose to using or not using them.
I'm all for advancement of society, but it's hardly regression to not eat meat, reduce travel emissions, or reduce housing costs. Many people live very low-footprint lifestyles, it's possible and quite do-able if you're efficient and non-consumerist.
I hate to be that guy, but [Citation Needed].
Otherwise, I agree with you what what essentially amounts to a primitivist approach is counterproductive.
Semantic games seem silly. If the parent prefers "placed" to "existed since formed in the Earth", then let's grant them the lingual shortcut. Likewise for "for Mankind" instead of "having existed for no particular purpose but being readily available for the usage of the dominant species of the land which can heavily benefit from their extraction and processing."
I have a difficult time believing that we arrived on a planet perfectly suited for our habitation and rife with resources that become unlocked at the exact point in our progress where we have technologies that require them, purely by chance.