>You can't recycle to infinity.
The lifespan of the earth is not infinite, pretending it is is foolish. We have about 5 billion years on earth before it will be consumed by the sun. Presuming an infinite earth creates a very obvious, simple, and wrong conclusion about something that is actually very difficult problem.
>The logical conclusion is that at some point we run out of resources.
The point of renewable resources -- like solar -- is exactly that they are renewable or effectively infinite.
You’re not really addressing the obvious though: that at the rate that we are consuming and polluting the earth, we could be pushing ourselves into extinction faster than the sun could just naturally swallow up the earth. I don’t think anyone is debating this eventual death of our star, but our astronomers would very much like to live long enough for us to find another home planet and develop the technology to get there.
I mean, I’m advocating for renewable resources… that doesn’t me arbitrarily stopping consumption. It means reorienting consumption to being responsible.
Mechanized farming, for example, prevents famine because it’s wildly more efficient than subsistence farming. Arbitrary “degrowth” does not address the fact that consumption isn’t arbitrary.
Most consumption is arbitrary.
I don’t actually know that is true.
How much of out consumption is food, housing, healthcare, and transportation of those things? I suspect it’s well over 50% of income.
Continue your argument. Don't stop at solar. In the next 5 billion years we must leave. How do you propose we do that if we focus on fast fashion and changing cars every 2 years?
I’m skeptical how much those things are contributing to the end of society. My main concern is GHGs, after that, these behaviors are wasteful, yes, but the vast majority of the limited resources can be recaptured.