Why do you put quotes around "rich Western countries" in that context?
I used quotation marks because it's a verbatim quote from your comment.
Unlimited growth in unsustainable.
Yes, this should be obvious. Yet capitalism in its current form is predicated on perpetual growth. This leads to the awkward realisation that capitalism as we know it is unsustainable.
Consumption and disposal are sustainable. The question is at what point does consumption and disposal become unsustainable or too harmful to warrant it.
There are a lot of signs that we're on the wrong side of the threshold already.
Your implied argument is fallacious: there's no reason e-waste must necessarily be thrown into a heap and burned and the runoff leached into the water table
If you factored in the cost of dealing with e-waste responsibly, things would become a lot more expensive. But people will ignore externalities until they have a gun pointed at their head.
You're being disingenuous. What you're referring to as "rich Western countries" outsource manufacturing to places like China, and deal with masses of waste by dumping it wherever they can get away with it. Then you want to blame the countries manufacturing the goods for the emissions/waste from manufacturing (rather than the actual users of the goods), and blame the countries where the waste is dumped (rather than the source of the waste). If you cut the consumption, you'd no longer have the waste.
The problem is excess consumption. People in the third world don't consume anywhere near as much, and hence have less impact overall than a far smaller number of people in rich countries. Removing every Indian wouldn't solve the problem, because they aren't the ones creating the waste.