Yeah that's my basic idea regarding permaculture, quality and prices as well: in reality, a rational human being, granted a position where he can afford to choose, would rather go for the tomato that is maybe 5X the price but comes with the least amount of external costs, as well as higher nutrient density, rather than the tomato that is sprayed with pesticides and genetically modified to produce "yield" not nutrients per tomato... like, it's common sense, really.

The decay of fiat money only creates inorganic demand for such low quality "food" that we are all so accustomed to today. Real demand, under a truly capitalist system would look much different, I reckon.

Regarding game theory: yes, perhaps this is the biggest flaw with that sort of thinking, as well as with Schmachtenberger's points:

Yes, Earth is finite. There are many resources on Earth that are finite. HOWEVER, the energy that is out there, available for us to use and modify (in a responsible manner), is, for all intents and purposes - infinite - at least from a human civilization perspective. The Sun is infinite. Thermal energy is infinite. Nuclear energy also (probably) infinite. So in that sense, the "whoever cuts the forest down quickest wins because someone is going to cut down the forest anyway" argument doesn't really hold water anymore IMO.