You described no other imminent problem.
to your 1), food supply is a moot point as population will stagnate. The West often overproduces as it stands and is poised to reduce food waste.
to your 2), we're nowhere near depletion of resources, and there's no reason to believe the average person's purchasing power will not only greatly increase to allow for inordinate amount of consumption, but that it would outpace technological innovation which minimizes and recycles materials.
> With what we have done every time we got additional energy so far, it is likely that getting fusion will increase pressure on planetary boundaries that are not CO2 emissions : you fix a problem by worsening the others.
Fusion, to the extent you're portraying it, is a long ways off, and additional energy has not done much for the average person in the last several decades. It's irrational to project outsized negative impact.
> since more and more people will get access to middle-class (or more) lifestyle
Before population stagnation, yes. That's among the driving forces leading to stagnation. But after which, no. "More and more people" necessarily ends at "all of them".
> so far we have observed the impact technology has been to dramatically increase ressource use and waste overall, not reduce them.
Technology to reduce is in it's infancy. Necessity is the mother of invention. These externalities were never much of concern to the oligarchic, financial and political classes - that is changing.
> Then you haven't read or studied resources
You're looking too short-term.
> or try to keep growing
Nowhere do I advocate for this. False dilemma.
We know we can make it by limiting population growth.