TED talks - intro to thoughts

I've just been watching some of the new Talks put up from the TED 2012 conference. The two contrasting talks but Paul Gilding and Peter Diamandis started the ideas flowing again and I feel the need to explore the implications.
Gilding covered the problem with finite resources in a world where economic theory encourages unlimited growth. Since the first is the immovable object, the second cannot be an irresistible force. The logical conclusion is that economic theory must fail and some sort of collapse is inevitable once this fact can no longer be ignored.
Diamandis talked about the promise of new technologies and things such as limitless cheap power, 3D printing and new active materials. These are game changing and subvert the concept of finite or un-reachable resources. Hence the immovable object can be moved and the theory may be irresistible.
My initial thought was that the introduction of new technologies could itself cause economic trouble. They will cause disruption to multiple trillion dollar industries and introduce global cultural change.
I added a comment to the discussion thread on TED:

I would think that the technology change in itself will create an economic crisis. The resource limitations are the driving force which require new solutions to be found. But even a relatively small change in technology can result in the complete upheaval of established industries.
Consider what is happening to the recording and publishing industries due to the paradigm shift created by the internet. Then think about the impact on power suppliers when everyone can get generate household power in their own backyards. What happens to the board of works when that power is used to extract water from the air.
The great abundance mentioned in Peter Diamandis' talk will completely destroy many major industries by making their core business obsolete - almost overnight too given current progress.
Even without the inevitable backlash from the entrenched powers, the economic impact on the developed countries would be disastrous. Places like Africa and parts of Asia may actually survive better because they are only a short way down the large scale centralised infrastructure path. Hence they should be able to leapfrog onto much more sustainable technology - if political considerations don't get in the way.

Further thinking keeps leading to other ramifications that I will need to work out in other posts.