The only systems I can think of that function under the axiom that you suggest, which is that scarcity is a necessary obstacle to tackle before systems can resist destroying shared resources, are ecosystems dominated by invasive species and cancer. In both cases, it is the inability to tolerate abundance in a system because of an endless growth mechanism that causes the destruction of a dynamic encompassing stability.

Well, that sounds like an accurate description humanity in the last 1000 years at least.

In other words, every society that experienced periods not entirely ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian regime and that had/have some shared wealth whether it be in public spaces, public knowledge, public utilities, public education or other forms of public shared resource.

I think that statement is more supports my current position. You’re pointing out a temporary state, not an enduring condition. I could probably argue that even many of those temporary states of a successful shared commons were potentially built on the exploitation of others outside of those benefiting from the commons, but lets ignore that for now. None of those endured. Every single one has ended, or in some possible isolated cases that may exist today, have not shown they could endure with changing social or geopolitical conditions. These examples don’t live in a vacuum either. Unless the whole of humanity is onboard, a segment could pillage the shared commons of another society if they did not have adequate defense as has been shown in humanities history an uncounted amount of times. So what, in your approach, would change one of these temporary states to a permanent one that humanity would actually implement?

The way you understand how scarcity MUST impact systems cannot explain this blatant inefficiency in a natural ecosystem, individuals in nature are supposed to use EVERYTHING they can right?

Not right. There is no scarcity of resources for the bears because here bears use a form of violent authoritarianism to ensure resource (salmon in your example) availability for themselves. A dominate bear will kill weaker bears to ensure food, mates, and territory are established. In that sense, it mirrors the human reaction. Again, that points away from a non-violent benevolent society of a workable shared commons.

Except it didn’t because it turns out the Grizzly Bears discarding the Salmon ends up transferring a massive amount of nutrients from the Ocean to the Forest. The system benefits from slack, from a giving up of an individual boon for no perceivable immediate collective gain…

The only way I can see your example apply to humanity is if you’re suggesting humanity should enforce a class hierarchy where apex predators (small segment of high class humans) get first dibs of the prime resources, and lesser creatures (the middle class) and plants (those in poverty) benefit by what the bears leave behind. Isn’t this the premise of Regan’s much hated “trickle down economics”? I don’t believe you’re suggesting that, but I’m not seeing an alternate interpretation. I’m open to hearing your alternate explanation.