So no people working = no salaries = no consumption. Am I missing something or from this perspective the paradigm is also doomed in the long run?
So this is exactly what people was saying when farming was mechanized, then there was industry, then that was mechanized, then there was the service sector.
If we get that level of mechanization you won't have to work more then like an hour a month to maintain your current standard of living anyway cause it will be that cheap. Also there will always be new ways to provide benefit to other people and earn some income.
Also no consumption is not a bad thing, it would create tremendous wealth extremely fast if all production in society was dedicated to capital goods and technological development.
The part about reducing the resource consumption. How do you make a chair with less wood? You just can "spawn" matter. How do you produce more energy with fewer fuel, whatever the fuel used is?
Compare the amount of resources that go into a car today and 20 years ago. It is way way less and the car is still much better. You can make the chair from something else and use less resource value if wood should get expensive. Fuels can also be replaced but there is plenty of room to get more energy from the same fuel in most kinds of energy production. Internal combustion engines have a 70% waste ratio or what is...
So the UN thinks economic growth and natural resource consumption are indeed coupled. Not only that, resource consumption has effectively rocketed since 1900.
And they are a bunch of inbred sociapathic retards that don't understand economics.
As a resource gets scarcer the price go up and a technological solution to either use less of it, recycle it or find an alternative resources will be found. Forcing such development to happen faster then the market would drive it is however a tremendous waste of capital.