The most obvious way of cutting production is to make things to higher standards. If everything were made to last twice as long then we would only need to make half as much of it. This requires us to slow down the rate of technological progress so that goods (and humans) do not become functionally obsolescent so quickly.
How, but, Umm, what?
How can you argue with someone who has grasped the wrong end of the cluebat so firmly?
Technological progress allows us to create more value while using fewer resources. If you think we\’re running out of resources, which Mr. Fairlie seems to think we are, then you should be gung ho for technological progress, not wanting to hamper it.
Doesn\’t anyone actually bother to read the foundational documents of the whole climate change eco-disaster thing?
Energy and mineral resources are abundant in this scenario family because of rapid technical progress, which both reduces the resources needed to produce a given level of output and increases the economically recoverable reserves.
Is this whole discussion being driven by gibbering idiots?