We should reiterate that this is a discussion about the outcome of nuclear fusion, which if scaled up, would be poised to greatly disrupt CO2 emissions. This means that the imminent concern in the capacity of sustainability (exacerbation of climate change) is largely addressed, save for the carbon capture / cooling aspect we will want.
We're depleting resources, and we're also still growing. If we're scrutinizing a future with a non-growing population, it makes no sense to assume the same level of depletion. It's a function of demand. Much of new land encroachment isn't for any novel products, it's to increase the output of meat production to satisfy demand (in South America at least, in the U.S. that land-use has not been growing).
This also doesn't take into account technological innovation.
> This factor is much more powerful than population growth.
The rich are too few in number and they're primarily rich by virtue of everyone else's consumption. Notwithstanding that their own practices can be very damaging, it doesn't meet that scale.
> It is more the cause of the problem by enabling us to do always more and more, with our clumsy, human ways and therefore disrupting nature always more and more.
This is purely philosophical. There's no evidence that a zero-carbon world with improved energy efficiency would necessarily lead to environmental destruction.
We're depleting resources, and we're also still growing. If we're scrutinizing a future with a non-growing population, it makes no sense to assume the same level of depletion. It's a function of demand. Much of new land encroachment isn't for any novel products, it's to increase the output of meat production to satisfy demand (in South America at least, in the U.S. that land-use has not been growing).
This also doesn't take into account technological innovation.
> This factor is much more powerful than population growth.
The rich are too few in number and they're primarily rich by virtue of everyone else's consumption. Notwithstanding that their own practices can be very damaging, it doesn't meet that scale.
> It is more the cause of the problem by enabling us to do always more and more, with our clumsy, human ways and therefore disrupting nature always more and more.
This is purely philosophical. There's no evidence that a zero-carbon world with improved energy efficiency would necessarily lead to environmental destruction.