It is worth pointing out that alleviating the problem by having people do less (as you put it) is far less of a gamble than betting it all on innovation. Innovation kicks the can down the road. Innovation means relying on a very select few capable of the innovation required, and an even more restricted set of people to finance it.

Also curious is that these compromises are almost never framed as a temporary adjustment to humanity's consumption until the innovation catches up. Would think that's more palatable, but instead it usually seems like "we need to stop consuming like this, forever".