>
I don't think that us having clean energy, or producing more energy, is a bad thing in and of itself.That's good; but unfortunately, people do fixate on "growth" and "energy use" as sources of problems, when they're not. To better evaluate what we can and should do, we need to keep in mind where exactly the problems come from.
> I'm more wary about the idea that we can solve all problems if we just have more energy.
I'm not saying we will or would, but we definitely could solve most of them. Energy is a necessary but not sufficient component of almost everything we do, and "more energy" is a necessary component of some ways of fixing climate that we currently aren't deploying - like e.g. synthesizing hydrocarbons instead of digging them up from the ground.
> But can you create natural wilderness? Can you provide habitats for wildlife?
Yes, we can. The best way to do it is to transplant some existing wilderness. The habitat will build itself, that's exactly what life is good at.
> Can we produce cities for humans rather than endless car-based hellscapes?
In theory, we can. In practice, this is where technology ends, and economy and politics start.
> I don't want to live on a farm. I want to live on a natural Earth that we live in symbiosis with, not an extremely efficient well-tuned machine.
Same, but that's because Earth already is a pretty decent machine, full of self-regulating feedback loops. It works well without supervision, and it's kind of dumb of us to break the feedback loops only to then have to maintain them "by hand", because they're crucial to our survival. We should be able to let it mostly be, enjoy it, and focus on doing other cool stuff. I still believe nature is there for us to exploit, but we're doing it the dumb way instead of the smart way.