Matlhus theory would have been right, except for the ramping up of coal use. The use of coal greatly increased food production, because it allowed such innovations a steel plows in quantity, hydroeclectric (using concrete and steel) and the ramp up in the use of the steem engine, which allowed much better transport, both by ship and by rail. Caol also allowed the huge use of metal needed to make train tracks.
Bronze may have indeed helped end the "stone age," but the issue is that we have not learned to live without metals. Metals require a huge amount of heat energy to refine. We also need all kinds of other minerals.
Without heat to refine minerals, we are pretty much up a creek, without a paddle. We are without metals. In fact, we are also without plastics, and without all kinds of other moderns materials as well--synthetic fabrics, modern medicines, amd most everything else we need.
Solar and wind just plain don't have what is needed to continue to give us the heat energy that allows all of the "innovations" you talk about. They are too dilute for our needs. Their intermittency does not allow them to be scaled up well. Look at Germany, as it plunges into recesssion. Or Spain or Greece.
Solar and wind are extremely expensive ways to save on carbon. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
The article from the Economist is based on a Brookings Institution report.
Innovation without materials to work with doesn't work. Broken supply chains are also huge problems.