Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.” In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or…
So far, there is zero evidence that technology can really do that. Any efficiency is countered with absolute growth. Plastic production has not decreased, and CO2 levels are rising as always. It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it. Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I thi…
However, there is more than a small chance of the future I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air, with little to no impacts. I am an academic scientist, and am focused on solving the specific problems that will make what I am talking about possible- and basically everything I mentioned is already working fairly well... and is already cheaper, safer, and more practical then petroleum chemistry and mining if you factor in externalities. However, the only real path I see to getting people to use it is to make it better still, so it is fundamentally cheaper and superior, without even factoring in the externalities and nasty impacts of our current way of doing things.
Degrowth is quite frankly not going to happen voluntarily, it's a cultural and political non-starter, and also leaves us with an inability to fix the massive damage to the planet we've already caused, and leaves us dying from diseases that we are very close to understanding how to prevent. We've decimated and poisoned our natural environment such that simple living is no longer even possible in most places- where I live the fish and other wildlife are almost all gone, and the few left are too toxic to eat. Let's instead go all in on understanding science so that we can in principle do almost anything we can imagine with little resources or impacts, and then also have much higher standards for what we actually choose to do with the knowledge.
Edit: I looked at your blog and agree with a lot of what you are saying, but also disagree with a lot, but see you are a deep thinker that cares a lot about this stuff. I think it would be interesting to talk to you more.