less consumers
less per person consumption
Okay, so now this helps me articulate a bit better what was getting me tripped up. There is no doubt that in terms of raw resources - minerals and so forth - consumption has to fall. Resources are not infinite.
I think I could rephrase my question like this: is it necessary that consumption involves non-renewable resources.
In other words, from an economist's point of view, if there is suddenly a four trillion dollar market in filling glass bottles with tap water and delivering them to homes that is "growth." If the delivery and pickup is done by self-driving vehicles, then there's also a rise in productivity. And if the vehicles are made with bioplastics and minerals harvested from landfills, then it could even be sustainable. And the activity of harvesting from landfills (or cleaning the ocean and funding that by selling the "pollution" - mercury, gold, etc that we've poured into the ocean), that also results in growth and productivity gains.
And as I write that, it occurs to me that I could state my question even more simply: is it possible to separate the economy from non-renewable resources?
The historian in me that takes the long view tells me it is possible, but it will only happen after catastrophe and collapse make it clear there is no other option.
But I can't believe that 100% because if I do, I will be paralyzed from trying to nudge things the other way, however pitiful my own commitment to that is.
