I'm never impressed by the nihilistic argument that "surplus leads to laziness, immorality, and decay," because people have achieved comparatively massive surpluses before many times in history without decaying. The times when decay occurs might overlap with some of the times there is a surplus, but it is clearly not the surplus which is at fault. There is another independent variable involved in the technologically advancing societies which do collapse.
Surely the first agriculturalists, upon harvesting a crop and settling in for a winter of (comparatively) hedonistic delights--having enough food, shelter, and firewood for months of survival--could be considered to be enjoying a surplus, compared to hunter-gatherer predecessors who lacked the ability to store or preserve food to such a degree. And yet, civilization didn't immediately collapse into homosexual orgies and dwindling birth rates. Quite the opposite.
Should the Romans have avoided the aqueduct because it spelled doom for their civilization? Should Americans have shunned NASA, or the automobile? Nonsense. These things only look like "hedonistic surplus" in hindsight. In actuality, technologically adept peoples have grown and developed over tens of thousands of years, achieving machinated luxuries or proportional increases in wealth, and not collapsing due to them except in certain particularly memorable instances. And in most (all?) of those cases, there's been a racial component. Traders followed by slaves to Egypt; traders followed by slaves to Rome; traders followed by immigrants to America; traders followed by immigrants to Europe...
Technologically adept peoples could have even more luxury and weird sex and still do just fine, so long as their societies weren't being managed by traders who empowered niche groups toward cultural destruction while encouraging the importation of foreign labor (sic).