<i>&gt;More and more economic value of what we consume derives not from land and raw materials but from human inputs like design, creativity, engineering and services. This means that a smaller amount of raw materials is necessary to produce one dollar of GDP than it used to.</i><p>Very much this. It isn&#x27;t, however, a new insight to economics. That the limits to growth argument is a fallacy based on conflating increased value with increased resource use is standard economics but misunderstood by almost everyone else, hence the trend for physicists to write blog posts calling down derp on econ types. This is explored by Tim Harford in a piece on Freakonomics [0].<p>I would highly recommend Harford&#x27;s book <i>The Undercover Economist</i> to anyone with even a passing interest in the field. It&#x27;s one of those humbling books which demonstrates that everything you thought you knew about a subject was basically wrong.<p>[0]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;24&#x2F;can-economic-growth-continue-forever-of-course&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;01&#x2F;24&#x2F;can-economic-growth-conti...</a>