It's only bad if there aren't undiscovered sources and/or processes we can use in the future to produce more water. It's technological optimism, not disingenuousness.

Saying there might be fixes for this in the future is also disingenuous.

It's like saying military burn pits are okay because there may be medical advancements in the future that can be used to treat afflicted soldiers.

Arguing against optimism is arguing against the history of science. We have cures to diseases that were declared unavoidable divine judgements, we have achieved feats of engineering that would be unimaginable a century ago. I am not arguing for the deapoilation of the planet. We should preserve our resources as best we can. But future growth requires the usage of what resources we do have, in to achieve outcomes and efficiencies far better than we can imagine.

I do agree though, if science wasn't verifiable, it would sound like a pyramid scheme.

Technological advances are nice, but you can’t just assume they will happen. There’s no law or axiom that says we will discover something new, and certainly not on any time scale that we could plan against to avoid problems we predict today.

Based on past trends, it's much more likely we will discover new sources and methods of resource generation, than not. Diamonds were rare, now lab created, electricity was once sparse now ubiquitous. The trend is obvious

Technological pessimism underestimates the rate of progress, but technological optimism routinely overestimates it. In the 50s people thought we would have superintelligent robots, flying cars, moon colonies and cold fusion by year 2000. In the 60s people were optimistic that we would eradicate all diseases in the near future. Right now some people believe the singularity will happen in the next decade. What could possibly happen in the next century that would be "unimaginable" to them?

If you showed today's world to an optimist from a century ago they would see many wondrous things they would never have thought of, but they would also fail to see many of their predicted advancements. And I do think that what optimists predict is usually far more impressive than what actually comes to fruition. That's not to say the pessimists are right, but the optimists simply don't have the track record you seem to think they have.

That sounds like it's beyond optimum into foolishness. I could possibly win the lottery one day, but I'm not going to live my life as if it's guaranteed.

Your analogy is an extreme example of the principle I'm referencing. Taken to a similar extreme, your argument is that we should choose who lives and who dies, through the limitation of the resources required for growth.

They are just being realistic, their example isn’t extreme (though yours is).

It is entirely possible with our current level of technology to adjust to the realities of the physical limitations in the world as we know it, without needing to resort to picking “who lives and dies”.

If those adjustments are to be made, they should be in increases in supply, not artificial constraints, that's my argument. Winning the lottery is imo more likely than finding a way to limit growth without draconian/totalitarian measures.

I'm not being disingenuous. I honestly have a different analysis and opinion than you.