Nature's inherent limits will "fix" those (supposed) problems and the "discussion" will take place--one way or another.  Would you rather it be primarily verbal or via other, non-verbal means?

   And, besides, "positions" are necessarily "ideological" --otherwise they contain no "ideas".  To pretend that there are any non-ideological "positions" is neither necessary nor helpful though it is, of course, possible to pretend this.

 --------------

  RE (ref. http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2011/7/19/15816/2580#66 ) :

  "You just have to employ a larger fraction of the population in activities with a low resource use."

   "Capitalisms" don't do this well or, so far, at all.  Instead, success is practically defined as "More, more, more, more, more."  Higher consumption, higher profits, higher "productivity", higher output, etc.  Capitalisms, in short, "succeed" by literally using everything up--completely.  

   In this vein, Jean-Jacques Salomon's points in his essay, Le destin technologique ( http://www.folio-lesite.fr/Folio/livre.action?codeProd=A32811 )

   where he describes a very arresting thought experiment.  It goes very roughly something like this:

   Imagine for a moment that the earth and its human populations one day reach their absolute limits--I know, you'll object that this can't and won't occur because one or more catastrophes will intervene before that limit arrives, but this only makes Salomon's point the more arresting since his scenario is the "good news", so to speak, since it takes for purposes of analysis the view that somehow humanity so controls and attenuates those intervening and population-limiting catastrophes that, in effect, populations go on growing until the earth's resources, and or technological capacities to "stretch" them also reach their limits--that, when you think in his terms (i.e., many thousands and thousands of years) has to occur eventually or, otherwise, of course, we become extinct as a species.

   In extrapolating, we arrive inescapably at the point where the only feasible operative possibility is literally "zero" growth, none, at all, because even the smallest measureable increase is beyond the capacity of physical resources to accomodate.

  It seems clear to me that before any future human society arrives at this extreme, we (or that future people, more able than are we to reason and act sensibly for their own survival) have essentially two courses open:

   one is to continue as we are until we eventually destroy ourselves in some combination of itentional and accidental folly;

  the other is to veer off our present course in ways which are so fundamental a departure from our present assumptions that they are as yet not welcome to imagine or discuss in most discussion fora.  The present insanity must be protected and preserved.

  And that's driving the current misery around us.

"In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge