If resources were not scarce,economics will not exist as a discipline.reconcile this statement with?

i am not clear to what should the statement be reconciled. however, i do not agree with the statement fully. it is true that if the resources were not scarce some areas of economic studies would lose their relevance. stil the needs would be unlimitted and would require transformation of primary resources into more and more complex products and services under a competitive environment looking out for profits. the statement is based on the assumtion that humans would be happy to live with only their basic needs being fulfilled which I diasagree with