I'm describing a speed limit applied to production, not experimentation.
We can progress science, knowledge and technology all we want without necessarily committing every resource we can find to producing ten times more stuff than we need. Moving too quickly in terms of production can be detrimental to progress: first movers can and often do take over entire markets, leaving no room for the often better-designed second or third movers to shine. Moving more slowly allows for better maneuvering and making sure the best systems and technology can prevail. And it allows us to see problems coming before they hit us.
I think we could have made a utopia purely from fossil fuels if we had been more careful and restrained using them. In my view, the fact that we couldn't do that is a major indictment of our process.
Nah. Rapid, unconstrained growth in the early production and use of fossil fuels was one of the greatest factors ever in saving lives and improving quality of life worldwide. Stopping that would have condemned millions to poverty, darkness, and death.
And it's a moot point anyway because there was no way to slow down even if some people wanted to.
There is such a thing as borrowing against the future. If we fail to keep climate change in check and millions of people die as a consequence, that may just wipe out all the gains you mention.
And let's not mix everything up. Every innovation is different. Penicillin and the Green Revolution aren't in the same category as bottled water and fast fashion. We can certainly fast track technologies that have large, immediate positive effects while throttling frivolous crap.
Or maybe we can't. Maybe humanity can't plan ahead -- being made from thinking agents doesn't necessarily grant a system a capacity to think. But I find it's a strange act of faith to believe barreling ahead thoughtlessly is somehow always going to be fine.