I feel the same way as you. It seems like "economic growth" is being used to justify ignoring other societal issues. For example, you can pretty regularly see people on this site saying that retired people should be forced to relocate out of SV because they aren't contributing to economic growth as much as a high density apartment building filled with recent STEM grads would. Having everything focused so much on growing makes it feel like I'm stuck on a runaway train, where I'm forced to either spend most of my life trying to feed the "economic growth" engines, or risk dropping into poverty if I live a simple life how I actually want to.

The issues with retired people in the Bay Area that they have prevented any housing construction at all in the last 30 years, while living in gigantic houses for now one ortwo people: that’s why they get so much hate.

There are downsides to democracy, one of those is that old people, women and minorities get a say in what happens. If they don’t want to sell out to corporate interests pushing growth at any cost, they can use their votes to favor slower more sustainable growth policies that protect people at the expense of corporate profits.

I imagine from their prospective they have worked hard their whole life to build up these communities to which they maximize their own feeling of safety, enjoyment, belonging as well as many other sentiments I am sure. Perhaps it is their belief that the stand of trees preventing a skyscraper is much better served as a stand of timber for nature and other outdoor activities. My point is they have as much of a say in the world as the next guy. I wonder if what is happening is a bit of ageism where the younger generations think they know what decisions are best for a community while dismissing retired people’s desires. How we can compromise I do not know that answers.

The way it works in practice, they have more of a say, because they own all those properties.

The USA has a surface of 9.834.000 km². California is ranked #17 within the US based on population density and has only 97 people / km².

The Bay Area seems to have 18,000 km² which at 7.1 million people makes is quite dense already.

All of long island has 7.5 million people, at 5,617 people per square mile.

The bay area average is 868 people/sq mile.

No, the bay area is not dense at all.

Would you still be okay if you only had an average level of wealth (by world wide standards) and most likely much lower than you have now? If you want to keep your current level of wealth/consumption then in a no growth scenario many others have to stay poor. Or are you talking only about national scale?

not the OP but I don't think the conclusion that many others have to stay poor if we go down the route of a dematerialised economy is true.

If anything I'd argue the steps towards prosperity in an ecologically sustainable way in this scenario are shorter for developing countries, it will protect their ecology (it is the third world who works in the strip mines for the batteries for affluent tesla drivers in California), accelerating digitization is cheaper than traditional infrastructure, it gives them the opportunity to leapfrog over traditional industries, it will drastically reduce the impact of climate change and so on.

> many others have to stay poor if we go down the route of a dematerialised economy is true

This not what I meant. I mis-read OPs

>> welcome the economic decline that would come with growth reduction

as no growth. If the (slow) growth (magically) only goes to the poor they may indeed eventually catch up.

You are provably in a majority in developed countries.

Why?

A more robust and sustainable future for my grandchildren.

Why your grand children and not someone else's?

Or put differently, would you forgo having children and grandchildren so that others can have this future you imagine?

There are lots of people who intentionally don’t have children, me included. I don’t have much hope, if we continue treating Mother Earth as garbage.

That said, your parent comment probably meant “our” grand children, just a guess.

I meant everyone’s grandchildren. I will be more careful how I say that in the future.