After all, Yuval Harari argues that humanity was happiest as hunter-gatherers before the Agricultural Revolution mechanized living beings (both humans and other animals). Sure, he argues, that we've optimized health and longevity, but the quality of life is no longer the same. (I recommend reading his book Sapiens for further information).
I frequently think about this question of whether we would be able to concurrently salvage the environment and sustain human life given the state of technology as is. Many companies and nonprofits today espouse the advent of technology (more than positive behavioral change) as the harbinger of climate salvation.
Would the solution simply be resource allocation? Would proper management of the technological tools we already have at our disposal do the trick?
It's one thing to save the environment through individual and collective responsibility. Say, if we managed to eliminate single-use products, perfect a ubiquitous recycling system, each individual household sustained themselves only with what they could grow (minimizing red meat consumption), and everyone was relatively energy-neutral (no travel, yes to woodstoves, etc.)--think homesteading days--would we be healthier and happier?
Maybe these (incredibly austere) behavioral changes would be followed by a drastic influence on the proportion of the world's largest greenhouse emissions (electricity production, transportation, industry, commercial/residential, and agriculture). What would this math look like?