Sorry, I'm not parsing that. Are you missing a negative somewhere?
My intended meaning: a greater level of allocation equity may be achieved. If we're lucky, it's going to be at a relatively high level (I'd be happy with a late 19th / early 20th century industrialized world equivalent). If we're not, it will be at subsistence agricultural levels -- somewhere between late bronze and early iron ages.
Modern industrialized civilization is a tremendous heat engine, and without high-quality fuel inputs, it will cease to function. That will tend to decrease global wealth and population drastically.
As to the statement: life ain't fair.
There's a question of whether it's better to let some survive and/or thrive, and others not. It goes back a long ways. One of the more recent debates emerged when Garrett Hardin published his "Lifeboat Ethics" essay in 1974, which prompted fierce debate for several decades.