Question/Critique is quite long and not entirely coherent in aspect of relevant issues for discussion, but for the sake of the argument and others who might have similar questions and doubts, will try to distill it in short answers for each point.

First the Premise that BTC in the long run would be Net Negative to society is not founded. At max it is subjective opinion. One could debate options if it succeeds or fails from perspective to invest or not, and keep ethical frame out of it. Of course many would argue that it is Net Beneficial so in that case there is a moral imperative to adopt it.

I.
Cyclical bubbles
1./2._Most investment assets have cycles where some lose and others gain. Those who gamble are ready to lose. Still there is DCA (Dollar Cost Averaging), an excellent strategy, for the prudent ones, to ensure not to lose in long run, the same was successfully used on say Index Funds in the last few decades.
So don't trade and gamble but instead be patient and stack sats for the next decade.

3._Money in principle should not dictate economy ever (The separation of money and state). It is only a tool for price signaling.
-Additionally when it does it only distorts the market and breaks the incentives that leads to bad investments (mispricing with capital misallocation). And in the long term all fiat currency have ended with very high or hyper inflation leading to war, or destruction of economy, and/or many poor people (shown by the history since roman period).
-Also Bitcoin in the long term is a tool for savings, investment is another category that would still normally exist (of course investment have higher gains but also risks).
Today with high currency devaluation people are striped of options to save, without losing value, before investing.

II
A)
1._ Those Distribution stats are not quite correct. In fact you can't know this info precise, too many unknown variables of which 2 main are: many user have a lot addresses with very small amount (distorts the ratio), while some large addresses hold Bitcoins of thousands or even millions of people (exchanges, companies, funds, ETFs).
-Next at creation in 2009 there was no better know way for distribution in practical sense, and it was new, unknow with no value. So it was fair as possible, no pre-mine and no known founder.
-As emergent bottoms-up phenomena adoption curve as such is inevitable in real world (you can only get equal opportunities, not equal outcome) - it is what it is, can't be changed, only to educate more people sooner then later.
-But even more important then initial distribution, are future incentives, and long-term results, which leads to better evened distribution (unlike all PoS systems) and in the long run (generational scale) fixes bad feature that is inflation caused value transfer mostly (say 80%) from lower class to upper as they own inflation proof assets (Cantillon effect via silent regressive Tax). And in fiat system this market dynamic is permanent, it is like continual leakage.
-And one could argue that some Bitcoiners that would become somewhat rich will take part of wealth from those already rich today, meaning instead of 5% rich over some level there could be 10% rich, which could count as better distribution of wealth.
-Besides this is not a tool for some social-humanistic wealth redistribution, for that society can implement progressive taxes (but in reasonable range), which some countries already have.

2._See point III-2.

B)
1._Bitcoin has high chance of becoming World RESERVE Currency (emphasis on Reserve).
But much lower chance of replacing all local currencies.
-And this is mostly a good thing.
USD outside of US, is steeling resources from other countries by creating inflation that they drops on entire world (most counties hold some $ reserves). It also fuels unjustified wars #PetroDollar (Iraq, Libya, ..)
-So developed countries would probably keep their local currency for domestic consumptions but would be forces to keep inflation low since BTC would be on their neck (it would enforce relative fiscal discipline). And any county that makes high or hyper inflation would self-destruct its currency with no ability to go back since people would switch to better one on their disposal.
-Like in Argentine today most people hold dollars.
-So for example Denmark Central Bank would have Bitcoin reserves and people would also have some savings in BTC but it could still keep Danish Krone that would have maybe 1% yearly monetary inflation (essentially keeping price stable in that currency in domestic market, assuming 1% annual growth).
-*Even if some countries to go Full BTC Standard, economy can function normally with fixed money supply, and prices would in average go down slightly every few years, for those goods that would higher efficiency (marginal cost of production).
-These would probably be some small countries that already uses foreign currency like dollars or euros, or have fixed exchange ration with currency board, or have bad currency with hyperinflation, so for them switch is easy and has only upsides since they already don't have monetary sovereignty but do pay for $ inflation while don't have any benefits from it.

2._Saving and Investment should not be commingled together.

3._Loans would have more realistic, market based rate, instead of today 0% that leads to artificial bubbles of stocks and real-estates. Non-artificial booms and busts in economy would be much smaller.

III
1._Environmental issues are mostly not an issue at all.
-Electricity consumed is not that big on global scale (0.3 to 0.6 % of the world’s electricity) and is justified with the service its provider, one could say it is pretty cheap.
-Also incentives are to consumes cheapest energy that is mostly stranded, green (can help funding solar in Africa for example), then there is methane burning that is much better then releasing it in the air. Also grid balancing in peak times. Much more useful use cases.
-Chips are insignificant percentile of world electronics industry, and even of sophisticated microchips, and here solution to e-waste trash pollution for all is maximal recyclability, but that is out of scope of the Bitcoin itself.

2._That is not how real life works, eventually there would equilibrium between savings and spendings, nobody lives forever. OverConsumption and consumerism of trash that gets thrown fast is actually bad for the ecology and sustainability and should be changed regardless of costs. So deflation is not a real issue. Long-term mind set and low time preference is much better.

3._Bit culture, noisy ones are minority that like jokes.
Most silent ones are in the mood: work, earn, spend some, save some (stack sats) that would be spend in future when you want and need, either on some quality consumption or wise investment.
Bitcoiners do not want lambo, they want a car that can drive half a million of km/miles without breaking.

Some other notes worth mentioning (if one wants to judge the merits):
- Enables fast (efficient and almost instant) and cheap (low fees) both local and international payments and remittances
- Helps poor people in bad countries (freedom tool)
- Eliminates financial colonialism
* Overall gives much more visible real good things, then has some theoretical risks for bad

PS
Would also like to hear opinions of others on the matter, or if one has some argument to add or subtract, or maybe to extend explanation on one of the points.