I am not sure of the justification for that motive, which it looks like might have been plucked out of the air.
It isn't something taught in school (At least the Christian schools of my own memory), or on any of the University Engineering courses I've been on.
Engineering, by my understanding, is to study nature and look for where we might emulate it, not compete with it, or conquer it. We know enough from good Engineering courses, nature is the real authority.
We know it's crazy to think it could be conquered by humans. It isn't technology to blame for wiping out nature as if in competition, it's what we do with money, abstracting energy in a way that is quite dishonest, masking the damage done by profit, which is technically and most definitely physically, monetised destruction.
If it wasn't for that, there would be no destruction, because the energy in money has to come from somewhere, if not from the planet, then it has to come from the sun, and if from the sun it would be monetised creation, but we can never profit from the sun, only the planet. If we tried to charge more KWhrs than delivered, the difference has to come extracted from the planet, thus defeating the object, and all benefits of monetising solar at all.
Also, monetising sunlight requires money to be issued for free, to ensure money is issued at market rates per KWhrs coming in.
This will end most use cases of profit. So we better get used to something else, otherwise how will any value in money be rrtained at all, when the energy value in it has all dried up, and the energy in work required to extract, as difficulty of extraction carries on increasing, whilst solar continues to scale up, how will any energy value in money be retained?
Sorry my response ended up as energy again... :)