There is also the problem of a mechanism for this to be achieved. The short term perspective of the corporates combined with the need for short term resources by the scientific community leads to an incentive for intensification, almost inevitably involving MORE resources, not less. Forestry needs intensification like a hole in the head, but the mining incentive is ever strong with intergenerational natural resources - and that includes the productive potential of the land. The assumptions of ecological economics look a lot more robust than those of the economic rationalists. But let's keep questioning them.
People only SEE the flows.
You have identified the problem that members of future generatioins are not part of the price determination for the good in question. If we include the next generation's demand for oil in the current demand, then the market price would be higher, and the current generation would consume less. Thus, the question is whether the resource is essential. My reading of Ecological Economics literature suggests that there are at least two fundamental assumptions that differ from classical economics. First, intergenerational equity is paramount, such that the social discount rate is zero in the absence of technological change.