> You described no other imminent problem.

Not sure why what I described previously is relevant if this assertion is true in itself, however let's double-check this in what I wrote above: "whether its solid and liquid garbage (leading to wiping out 60% of wildlife in 50 years, spilling the phosphorus of our soils into the sea -making them sterile and killing life in the sea- etc etc), or gas garbage (typically greenhouse gases)", "all serious scientific reports (IPCC, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-bound... and others) say that we are currently depleting earth's resources much faster than it can renew them and destabilising many natural systems like climate/life etc to irreversible points" <= are these not imminent problems? Actually the main problems I've been describing in this post are precisely not climate change, to try and de-center the debate from just this, I'm not sure how you have been reading this...

> to your 1), food supply is a moot point as population will stagnate. The West often overproduces as it stands and is poised to reduce food waste.

Looking at how things currently work is a very bad indicator: since we are depleting resources faster than they can regenerate themselves (earth overshoot day was a few days ago), if we keep doing things as we are doing right now, even with constant population, even with a bit of improvement from technology, even with current overproduction, the food system WILL collapse. My point is: in all matters environment, the current way we do things leads us to collapse even if everything remains constant.

>to your 2), we're nowhere near depletion of resources, and there's no reason to believe the average person's purchasing power will not only greatly increase to allow for inordinate amount of consumption, but that it would outpace technological innovation which minimizes and recycles materials.

This is just not true, wether we stay on a carbon-powered society or if we transition towards a battery/renewables-powered society. And again, there is no need to account for future "increases of things", things are bad enough at the current rate.

> Fusion, to the extent.... The amount of energy person has not increased in the last several decades in developed countries.

> "More and more people" necessarily ends at "all of them".

Absolutely. But don't worry, earth will have burnt long, long, long before even half of the world's population has accessed American middle class levels of comfort, so don't worry about getting to "all of them".

> Technology to reduce is in it's infancy.

What makes you think you can bet on technology reaching levels to reduce it that are acceptable? What if we miss the target and collapse because of this bet? It's a risky one...

> Necessity is the mother of invention. These externalities were never much of concern to the oligarchic, financial and political classes - that is changing.

The necessity has been here for decades but nothing has been done, again, I wouldn't bet too much on the fact that the effect of this is going to be enough to compensate our hunger for freely-available resource extraction and depletion.

> We know we can make it by limiting population growth.

I don't know which credible source on the matter says this but certainly most don't. Sources say that much more than just limiting population growth is needed to make it.