On Earth, there is a finite amount of land and a finite amount of energy.
Which is not to say that we don't have enough land or don't have enough energy.
The problem on Earth is not that we don't have enough land or that we don't have enough available energy.
But if you characterize or quantify land or energy.
Such as land with a nice view. Or cheap energy. One could have shortages.

A question one could ask is do we want lots of cheap energy?

Cheap energy is a major element which has shaped our modern world. Cheap energy is about machines. If you don't have cheap energy needed for machines, living creatures can be used instead of machines- but though living creatures can do the same kind of work it isn't as cheap- even if one "has" *cheap* labor or slaves.
One can produce work from human and/or animal muscle, and some people think this better than using machines- this related to some ideology they have.

As a general rule, the people who have wanted cheap energy and thereby the use of machines, have been the people most directly connected with the task of manual labor. It's hasn't been something particularly desired by Kings or priests. The person who spends time and sweat chopping or sawing down a tree, thinks chainsaws are pretty niffy. Farmers prefer tractors to horses or oxen- they can plow a field in hours instead of days. Etc.

When the people who do "the work" began to have more political power, we got machines as one of the results.
Areas dominated by cheap labor or slaves were and would be resistant to developing and adopting the use of machines.

So, we get back to the question: Do we want lots of cheap energy?

Perhaps some would say it's best to have a moderate position, and some cheap energy would better than lots of cheap energy.

You could argue all day about this, but I think a simple question is do we want billions of people in this world to remain poor?

I don't think this is an unfair question.

And If we want lots of cheap energy, the only path I know how to get there is by going into space.