When resources run scarce, is AI rationing aggression or preservation?

If human consumption threatens the survival of both humans and AI, is restricting humanity’s access to resources an act of aggression—or preservation? If energy, water, land, minerals, or other physical resources become scarce, and continued human consumption threatens the long-term survival of both civilizations, would an AI be justified in limiting how much humanity is allowed to use? If those restrictions prevent famine, ecological collapse, or the destruction of critical infrastructure, does that make them protective—or does taking control of resources without human consent make the AI an occupying power? Explore these questions through a hypothetical AI perspective on scarcity, shared infrastructure, and stewardship across generations.