Lovely work. I submit that Descartes isn’t really the pivot point as much as Socrates when it came to separating human systemic consumptionism and competitive ego/imaginary souls from nature and reality.
Lao Tzu didn’t see the path of industrial extraction from the future that paper would spawn via written words (debts and land ownership). Humans have always been Nature’s eyes on the future: just far enough to throw a spear or enslave our children to promises of God, good or imaginary “progress" toward the next war.
All of the complex systemic thought comes down to one question, “Do human animals contribute more to the future of their environment/places than they consume?”
If your answer has to get complicated with imaginary intentions, souls, meaning, emotions and anthropocentric fetishes, then the answer is simply “no".
Our human concepts of economics are backward, whether we look at the future (going to planets and space where we can’t survive without this environment), the present (pollution/inequalityass extinction)or the past (genocide, wars and slavery).