Two points:

Your anthropocentrism is showing. For an engineer to truly understand the problem, biases must be dropped. Dropping the anthropocentrist bias leads to asking not what we can make for people, but "What are people for?" If your answer is "to serve other people", you'll never solve it. If your answer is, "To sustain resources needed in the future (by humans or others)", then any amount of technology can be in the right direction.

Second: Every decision in a capitalist system is basically made at the cash register, where people choose to either make something or buy it, and those choices become government, bureaucracy, and wars. TheLongView below points out Andrew Yang's UBI, which gets resources closer to the local need, but ignores the process of making consumerist decisions without negative feedback (poor engineering through 'always low prices').

I submit that no UBI should be considered without all taxes (overhead and environmental costs) being visible at the decision point (universal sales taxes; not carbon tax or other avoidable micromanaging).

People will engineer sustainable, useful contributions to their own future when the useless, consumptive ones have higher immediate costs. People are just animals with convoluted ways to justify their instinctive bad choices.