This is precisely the problem: keeping resource consumption fixed. While indeed many seem to view the problem as keeping the population fixed, that is only because they feel rather comfortable with the status quo. If resource consumption is fixed, then 0% economic growth is possible only when we can produce more product from the same resource base. Technology is limited by economics, so it can't improve without more investment (which ultimately depend upon resources). The problem is that the economic units and model employed by virtually every nation today requires exponential growth in resource consumption (the modifier being the "constant" in the exponent) to maintain a given standard of living for each person.
For example, if I can be personally satisfied with my standard of living by making and selling 100 chairs this year, I have to sell perhaps 103 chairs next year (current US inflation rate for April 2011 is 3.16%) to maintain that same standard of living, assuming that everyone else simply increased their prices to deal with inflation in the monetary unit. Every year, I have to increase the number of chairs that I sell to maintain that same standard of living, even though I have to work harder each year to make more chairs. It seems natural, then, to simply increase my prices to meet inflation so that I don't have to work any harder each year. Assuming that I don't just increase the prices beyond what is required by inflation, all I have done is passed the work off to someone else. Eventually, someone has to work harder (and consume more resources) to keep up with inflation.
If one replaces debt-based monetary units with fixed monetary units (perhaps time, but certainly not another physical resource), then the pressure to produce more stuff this year compared to the previous year is no longer a necessity to maintain a given standard of living. Resource consumption could be freed from its current necessary ties to the economic model of virtually every country in the world. Indeed, our current model has logically led to basic resources (food, shelter, clothing) being expensive and luxuries being relatively inexpensive, which is precisely the opposite of any desirable policy on "sustainable living." This inverted value system has been transposed upon western society (and is being exported to other societies) giving rise to institutionalized greed.
To me, this problem about sustainable living is simply a conversation about how we wish to measure our values. Simply put, is a "rich" person a substantially harder worker than the average person, or is it the over way around? If we want to keep resource consumption flat, then we need to answer this question differently. In my opinion, it seems more humane and sustainable to answer this question rather than increase the death rate through abortion or hormonal "contraceptives" (they are all technically abortifacients).