I understand that scientists tend to be environmentalists over the last several decades, so they push back against consumerism, at least verbally. But as I already pointed out, the empirical criticism holds because things are still getting worse (see the link below), despite that pushback, and the civilizational "progress" is still fueled by science.
Also, I provide the evidence in other articles about consumerism, progress, and the ecological damage we're doing.
We could look, for example, at the downside of social media devices for teenagers and for everyone else. Science isn't solely to blame for it, of course, but it's partly responsible.
So I think the question that divides us is about the nature of the pushback. When is the pushback morally sufficient, and when does it remain hypocritical? For instance, should scientists become Luddites, or like Ayn Rand's Atlas, should they "shrug" or strike en masse, as in refraining from doing scientific research to shut down the modern world, putting a moratorium on "progress" until we figure this out? That kind of strike is barely even imaginable because science is so interwoven into industry, and industry proceeds on capitalist principles, not moral ones.
