I think you misread my position, badly. But it's understandable, I guess, given the material I've put online. Maybe it's time to revise again.

If I'm a disciple of anyone, it would be much more Bill McDonough than Amory Lovins. To Lovins, solving a problem by design is a matter of engineering out all the waste. To McDonough, it's a matter of reconsidering the problem statement, figuring out what we actually want (e.g. cold beer and hot showers, not refrigerators and water heaters), and then designing a solution that works within the context of existing and potential natural systems. The key is respect for natural systems, and the selective and careful application of technology where it will do the most good.

I do agree that if humanity has a future, it will be based on greatly reduced per-capita energy consumption. That's OK. By conservative estimates, we waste 2/3 of our energy production, and 4/5 of our transportation energy. And those estimates are made within the context of currently prevailing design practice for buildings, generation/transmission assets, and transportation. In point of fact, our waste:service ratio is probably more like 20:1, when you consider that a well-designed building in most climates needs only a very minimal climate control system, for example.

I'm not particularly worried about depletion of non-renewable non-energy resources. Either we will learn to design and live with closed cycles (>90% recovery), in which case it won't be a problem, or we won't, in which case the law of exponential growth dictates that no amount of resources will be enough.

If we build our artifacts from carefully selected technological and biological nutrients, we aren't going to run short of materials. We've got plenty, if we're careful. All that we need then is energy, and that is actually a challenging but tractable problem if we can stop being so toweringly stupid and short-sighted at every turn.

As for my personal love of technology: Yes, I like it. But that doesn't mean I particularly care for the way that it has invaded every nook and cranny of every moment of our lives. I like having the ability to travel to distant destinations at high speed, but I don't want to do it every day. I like being able to communicate instantly with distant loved ones, but I'd much rather see them in person. I like having access to an abundance of food, but I'd much rather grow my own. And I will, and have, made what most people would consider sacrifices in order to live closer to these preferences.

I rely heavily on email and the web, because it facilitates my ability to shape the world in a positive direction, but frankly I'd be just as happy to give up much of that. I just don't feel that I, personally, as a white American male with an expensive education, have the right to go live on a mountain and tend my garden while the world goes to hell around me.