> If we want to decrease our impact on the environment we need to stop using so much energy and so many resources, period.
That is fundamentally false. Energy austerity is the road to poverty and more environmental damage. Not to mention war.
> Chasing the next miracle cure
Nobody is claiming any miracles.
> we can easily run down that path picking up all the ecological damage of lithium mining and new manufacturing only to find that there are new problems and we're not much better off, we simply have different problems and a similar level if environmental damage as if had we stayed on the original path.
Sure, but we can also do basic research on the subject. Then make reasonable choices about that. And that's what happened.
Lithium mining is not nearly the problem some of the propaganda suggest. At worsts its like other mining. Mostly its better. The total lithium amount needed is tiny even if you think all cars are going to be lithium batteries.
Lithium mining is a drop in the bucked compared to iron and friends.
> I also hope we don't stick to a consistent growth of 2-3% in annual energy consumption, its no coincidence that number matches GDP targets and its unsustainable.
Its not unsustainable actually.
What you are really arguing actually is 'why should people in India and China be rich, it would be much better if they were poor'.
Are you gone determine what is 'rich enough' and when people should stop? Is Europe to rich already?
Are you gone tell poor Americans 'sorry, you can't use more energy'.
Energy poverty isn't the solution to anything.