Cognitive dissonance is comparing physical resources and infrastructure to monetary resources and financial assets. Totally different and nothing in common at all.
I'll just leave this here..
/proxy.php?image=https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/Absolute%20poverty%20time%20series%20March%202017%20data.JPG&hash=58ca3293962407f21a495064e8794f26
/proxy.php?image=https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/Relative%20poverty%20time%20series%20March%202017%20data.JPG&hash=cb3da789ba05c3878770b6b64ddef657
Well, I will just have to disagree with you.
By your logic, the people in say South Korea, have got rich at the expense of others in the world getting poorer. But in fact most of our lives have got better because of cheaper cars, TVs, and ships from that country. Even in the developing world, TVs, phones and computers are much more affordable now.
The video does not support your view either. In fact the whole world is getting richer in terms of health, living standards, and money.
There isnt any finite level of resources - 30 years ago all the talk was about Peak Oil hitting around 2010, now we have more oil than we know what to do with. Technology has allowed more oil to be produced and at the same time consumption to be reduced through the use of the new renewables.
That technological process isnt going to stop now, in fact there is an argument that it will increase at a faster rate.
They are intrinsically linked as without physical resources on which to index the 'value' of money either directly or by confidence in that inferred correlation, money is essentially completely abstract and arbitrary.
Monetary resources were originally measured directly against things like volumes of wheat, gold or other commodities.
Then came fiat currency where currency ceased to be directly linked to a commodity - and instead is linked to a countries stating what their currency values are - money is worthless in and of itself in fiat currency. It is the trust in and the ability of using any currency to buy physical resources as an index for what we see money as 'worth'.
A loaf of bread is worth a loaf of bread, £1 is only worth what it is relative to a loaf of bread, not the other way around.
There is finite matter and energy in the universe. There is finite matter and energy is our solar system relatively speaking allowing for the odd bit of extra solar debris and gasses we pick up or lose as we orbit around the milkway.
There is finite amounts of matter and energy on or received by Earth, there is a finite amount of sunlight that hits our planet at any given time and a part from small bits of meteorites that hit the Earth, the amount of elements, minerals and energy contained in that matter is relatively finite, certainly at any given moment.
That is physics, not abstract ideological, political or economical theories or beliefs.
The level of technology we have limits what resources we have access to and the efficiency at which we can access them at any given time.
Until we reach those new levels of efficiency and access, what we have available is finite in limit from which each and every human could have a share of.
If you are trapped at the bottom of the sea in a submarine, you have a finite amount of air available.
It's all well and good saying that we can develop more efficient ways to produce new oxygen, recycle what we have and clean out the CO2 ... however that doesn't really help much at present since you don't happen to have access to those technologies and inventions yet.
So, at present, you have a finite limited amount of air, and if someone starts taking more than others, even if you have plenty of air for days .... there will come a time when that extra air means a difference in how long you live.
You might get rescued, but depending on how you shared the air around, you might not have enough to make it to the point of rescue, or only the greedy sods that took more air for themselves might make it.
Great for them, not so great for everyone else.
There is no finite matter - for example we get 'X' amount of sunshine and at the moment this produces 'X' amount of power per square foot from solar panels. But as technology evolves those solar panels will be come more efficient and in 5 or 10 years we will get twice as much power psf as we do now.
There would only be a finite limit on resources if we stopped evolving.
Wealth is not limited as you say.
Getting more does not mean someone else must get less.
There isn't a finite pile of wealth sat somewhere.
China didn't make some of its people richer by making others poorer.
I'll leave the 'believers' in thinking there is an infinite amount of stuff to own.
Clearly not "Infinite" but to all intents and purposes we aren't running out of anything yet, or for the forseeable future.
Apart from endangered species that is... 