Edwin, two points that immediately jumped out at me when I read your paper:
1. Money very much does NOT represent energy in reality, since it is an irrational, subjective, centrally controlled illusion. I think you would have been far better off to use the idea of needs/resources as your second axis, if you wanted to have your ideas apply to reality.
2. In think your graphs are sideways from what you might have intended? At least on some of them. If not, I really misunderstood them. Also, the "conservative" curve you've drawn doesn't represent the actual conservative approach that we currently have in our resource/needs distribution system (the "economy" if you eliminate the idea ridiculous idea of numbers/money from the concept of economy, and simply use the term to refer to real things that are valued by individuals as ways to help them do what they need to do, as represented by your idea of energy in the system). The current approach to resource distribution is a single curve with just a few individuals having most of the resources at the top (or bottom) and most of the individuals having very little resources at the bottom (or top), and the middle having a middling amount of resources. The way you've shown it, the middle have the most resources/energy, which clearly isn't the case in human society right now.
Ultimately, of course, it's not about quantity, but about quality. The goal isn't equality of any one specific thing (even energy). I, as someone who lives in resource poverty right not, don't need MORE resources, I need BETTER resources, and I need the SPECIFIC KINDS of resources that work for my own, unique purposes, for attaining the goals I have in life. This is crucial, because evolution/biology has created a situation where our needs are diverse, resource-wise. And they are probably diverse enough for each individual to have ALL of the specific kinds of things, at high enough quality, we need to be as healthy and productive as we want to be. Or at least pretty close to that ideal. Or at least far closer than most folks ever imagine! (Though I agree that the graph, at that point, would be a typical bell curve, if you're only measuring quantitatively, with the middle volume of individuals having the most resources, but this would represent real equality, in the politically progressive sense, and it would mean a stable state, in the conservative sense, as well, since everyone would have what they subjectively most valued/needed, unrelated to the more objective measurement of the energy involved in that value. (In other words, what I, as a mouse, need might require very little energy, while what you, as an elephant, need might take a whole lot of energy, yet we'd both be totally satisfied with what we had, because we'd have the specific kinds of things, at a high enough level of quality, for what we aimed to do in life, which is what real equality is all about: subjective fulfillment.)
And yes, it's very clear that when some large portion of human society finally chooses to focus our energy/production/resources on taking good care of ourselves (in the global sense), we will indeed have truly created a global civilization, as you suggest when you say that "the decision to establish a poverty level or absolute threshold, below which no human should fall, marks the beginning of civilization". I call this, at least casually, a planet ready to procreate with the rest of the universe. :-) And freedom is indeed a crucial element of taking good care of ourselves, as we need to be free to take what we need to input into our bodies, and find outlets for what we need to output, so that we can be our best possible selves, and serve the world as effectively as possible, given our unique genes and environment.