We're not Pandas.
Ressource depletion is only a problem if our ressource consumption doesnt evolve. And it will evolve.
In the worst case, it could bring the bloody end of civilization as we know it.
I agree that society and technology could evolve us through a much more desirable path. But the more time we can buy for that to happen, the better.
I would inflect this differently. An open and free society is much more likely to figure out a desirable path for the future than one steered by central authority.
(In fact, it is the accumulation of thousands or millions of small improvements that will, in retrospect, be seen as a desirable path.)
Desiring "extra" conservation of the resources that today seem most limited, might not necessarily be incompatible with an open and unplanned society. But it usually is.
I'm talking about letting people choose not to reproduce (textbook freedom), instead of having a government policy to influence them to revert their choices for the perceived greater good (central planning).
The underlying problem is that sustainable products almost always have a price premium attached to them. And because the benefits of sustainability are indirect it's hard to convince people to pay more.
That evolution can be triggered by higher prices for ressources. And as they get rarer prices do go up.