Well but this is my point. The reason we're mining and logging and fracking more and more isn't because of new technologies, it is because we have more and more people.
Yes and no. Technology enables population growth by allowing us to use resources from everywhere on the planet to feed people in dense cities, until the resources run out. Also, it's not strictly population growth that's the problem, but the size of the population * their consumption of resources. There are ways to live where no pollution is created, and populations that live that way are not depleting the earth.
Take gasoline. The USA burned more gasoline in 2016 than in any other year on record (bad). But at the same time our use of gasoline per person is declining (good). If we were driving 1950s cars with todays population we'd be burning way more gasoline than the record breaking amounts we're already using.
I'm not advocating return to 1950s cars. What we need is to stop using cars entirely (or almost entirely). That won't happen overnight. But the earth can't support everyone driving cars, not even electric cars. The whole electric car thing usually ignores what's needed to create the infrastructure to support electric cars everywhere, and to produce the cars and batteries.
Take farming. Technological progress means we can grow more food on less land than ever before (good).
This is true, but it's not because of industrial tech farming. The most productive land per acre is small scale regenerative permaculture farms, especially in the long term and when you consider the land depletion needed to create inputs such as fertilizers. The small scale regenerative model could scale to almost everywhere the planet. It's more efficient per acre, less efficient at first per human labor, but not in the long run when you consider all the work needed to maintain the infrastructure that supports industrial agriculture. And we actually know how to do small scale non-industrial farming much more efficiently and productively than most cultures did in the past. i.e. I'm not advocating returning to 1800s style monocropping that was done in the US. Look into permaculture, food forests, soil regeneration, no-till, etc.
But more and more wilderness around the globe is being plowed up to make farmland every year (10 million hectares/year) because the demand for food is growing even faster than our ability to produce it (bad).
With regenerative agriculture, the land that is used for food production becomes healthier rather than being depleted. I know this firsthand. The monocrop fields where I grew up are mostly dead, not even worms in them, due to chemical use and tilling. Whereas the food forests I've seen are thriving, tons of worms and other bugs, birds to keep the pests in check, etc. So wildlife habitat does not need to go away for us to have plenty of food. Besides all that, most of the farmland right now is used to grow monocrops to feed to animals for meat. It's not necessary.
This isn't just a theoretical debate now -- plenty of people are living off these new ways of growing food, and more are flocking to it every day.