At the end of the day "this" (economic growth) is powered by using energy to multiply the impact of human labor. The Industrial Revolution kicked off because we learned how to harness steam powered by wood and coal, and how long "this can go on" is going to depend on how well we can manage the transition off fossil fuels into renewables, not just on a 1:1 replacement basis, but catering to increased future demand.
Yes, but renewables would only give us a chance to see growth plateau without our civilization disintegrating. The point the article makes is the year over year multiple-percent economic growth is impossible, and the limiting factor becomes the number of atoms in the galaxy on a timescale shorter than human civilization's total history.
The other part is increasing knowledge, which allows us to use energy more efficiently. This could theoretically allow continued growth with the same amount of energy.
> At the end of the day "this" (economic growth) is powered by using energy to multiply the impact of human labor.
That's just a restatement of the Victorian/Marxist model of industrial labor.
The actual reality is that energy intensity of the OECD economies has been dropping for decades. As well attested in several sources such as, say, EIA data.
I'm a big fan of energy consumption BTW, and think it should increase significantly on a per capita basis, especially in poorer regions (though not from fossil sources). I just have been following this particular statistic for years and see that growth is not proportional to energy consumption.
