OK, I though a lot about the last posts, and I think it all boils down to this.
Facts
Every living system and living ecosystem on Earth is in a state of decline, due to our economic activities. There is no debate about that, every scientific paper published in the last 30 years confirms it. It's abundantly clear that a different approach is to be put in place.
ONLY if you assume that human population is not a "living system." Sure, we are altering the ecosystem, and are using up natural resources, we as a living system are quite the opposite of "in decline." Some of the other living systems that are popping up due to our activity are on the increase as well, such as rodent populations, certain types of insects, farm animal populations and bacteria and viruses. That part of the "living ecosystem" is thriving. So, the real question is really, WHICH living system do you think should be thriving at the expense of other systems?
Granted you could be saying that our economic activity is using up some of our limited resources, and that activity is unsustainable, but then you're also proposing that we can use technology to make it sustainable, which I don't see a reason why we wouldn't anyway...
Proposals
I propose we try to approach the problems scientifically, evaluate what causes negative retroactions, try to prevent them through education, non violent and non coercive manners, strive for a dynamic equilibrium with nature, use a systemic approach and adapt our ways of lives so that they are aligned with what the planet can provide, in order to ensure our long term survival.
How is this not what we are already doing, with people and businesses pushing for more and more green tech? Though you have already claimed over and over that you don't believe the markets deliver what people ask for (i.e. you seem to be rejecting a part of the market that goes against your believe of "capitalism=bad") when the people are asking and willing to pay more for conservation, or when companies find it cheaper to conserve.
Free market advocates believe in individual freedoms above all, and that somehow an invisible hand, guided by god-like unprovable entity, will fix everything.
One could say RBE/TZM people believe that somehow an invisible hand will convince EVERYONE to believe the same thing and, guided by faith in some scientific calculations, force them to submit themselves to that one god-like scientific figure/entity that will fix everything... There's likely more faith involved in believing that people will agree to go against their own free will and nature, and would be willing to submit to a single group/entity's wishes just because that group/entity tells them they'll be better off.