Yes — and the chapter's own evidence is what makes the case, not the sentiment.
Every problem the chapter has described has the same shape. Each individual decision is reasonable on its own, and the sum of them is a loss for everybody:
- A single farmer pumping a little more groundwater is acting sensibly for his crop. When every farmer does it, extraction outruns recharge and almost 80% of Punjab is classified ‘over-exploited' — and then no one can reach the water (page 14).
- One commercial fleet taking a larger tuna catch loses nothing. When all of them do, the stock collapses and the fishery ends for all (page 6).
- One factory saving the cost of treating its effluent gains. When many do, the river becomes poisonous and cannot support life (page 7).
That is precisely the gap lokasangraha addresses: it asks each person to weigh the wellbeing of all, including those downstream and those not yet born, and not only their own immediate desire.
The chapter is not asking for a return to the past, and it does not pretend the idea is easy. Its own examples show what acting on it looks like in practice: Sikkim's farmers accepting five hard years of lower yields to reach a soil that would last; India sharing technology and finance for solar power with other countries through the International Solar Alliance rather than keeping it; communities that once stopped fishing in the spawning season. In each case someone accepted a smaller gain now for a larger, shared gain later.