As misanthropic as I am, I disagree with this phrasing. Let's break it into more specifics:
Earth is better off without Consumptionism.
Earth is better off with environmentally useful humans.
We know the Rich get richer because the poor work for them and buy their stuff. Why is that? Is it because the Rich have magical powers or because the poor are ignorant of the real costs of buying stuff?
Would the poor support the rich and their production machinery if it cost more to do so than to support their own places with their own hands?
Most of the "Eat the Rich" schemes end up demanding that the rich be taxed heavily. These schemes assume that the existence of the Rich needs to continue.
Keeping the poor from buying artificially cheap, environmentally destructive products depends on the poor knowing real costs at the decision point, and being supported with commonwealth to care for their places' future resources. We see science trying to come up with terraforming schemes for Mars or other planets, but not with ways for humans to be integrated in Earth’s environment except as extractors.
It’s kind of bizarre that we haven’t really figured this out yet: unless we accept that money is the dominant species we created: worse than the humanity-killing robots in our movies. Money is writing our consumerism scripts. Whether we blame the Rich or the Poor, we have granted Existential Power of Attorney to little green pieces of paper with unfettered movement.