I'm accounting for all those but your options are still dead ends with current and near future overpopulation.that is because the raw material is so currently cheap so recycling technology receives less incentive to develop.
Plastics in particular need to be replaced by other less environmentally harmful materials because it will remain cheap to make in the foreseeable future.
Just look at the progress of solar cells and offshore wind farms, recycling of paper. When there is money to be made...
No matter how much recycling develops, fresh material input will always be needed, and it can be quite substantial. To say that need not be is rather like arguing that perpetual motion is possible. Your example of paper recycling is unfortunate since even for the lowest paper grade, newsprint, the new wood input is 40%. That is unavoidable since the wood fibre that makes paper making possible breaks down with each use, resulting in weak paper that falls to pieces.
And as for wind farms, technology will never increase the incidence of wind, so other resources will always needed to be capable of providing much of our need at times.
We are already using far too much of this planet's land surface and resources and destroying other life in consequence. That is the biggest problem of all long term since the planet is an integrated system that needs to remain intact while naturally evolving.
Technology is all too often the unrealised enemy. The advances in solving our problems are celebrated while the costs to the planet's future ignored out of expediency until the cost is learnt too late. Global warming and our inability to do anything about it while watching parts of our ecosystem collapse is a perfect example.
.