You can not get exponential increase of energy efficiency. In some cases you even obviously already know the limits. At one point or another you will always be

You can not get exponential increase of energy efficiency. In some cases you even obviously already know the limits. At one point or another you will always be caught by physical realities; if all your activities are tertiary and highly valuable, great! But what do you eat? How do you heat? How do you move the basic goods to you? So the best you can get from where we are now are constant factors, either in a direction interesting for us (increase of energy efficiency) or not really interesting (from the energy needs point of view) but much needed and even ineluctable (lowering carbon emission and/or lack of petrol resources) -- and that's because we are already VERY far beyond the negligible impact on Earth point. Classic economic models are based on the approximation, now long gone, that resources are free. Still some are attempting to replace physical activities by virtual ones, to save the models (I don't really understand what's the point, but whatever): this does not hold, because you can not replace everything and worse: even just the essentials are problematic. So the question is actually not: "[do] they need their electricity and washing machines?" The question is rather: is there even a physically/politically/etc. reasonable way for everybody to get that; and actually even just to stay durably in a not too much chaotic world. And frankly this will be a HARD problem to solve. To the point relative peace in the industrialized world is clearly at risk, IMO.