I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful.
> They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun
And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little.
> why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).
Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way.
So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.
Also, that growth (in the sense I mean) is necessary for people to function. They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun.
> A wiser old person's transfer of their skills and perspectives (not propositions, or knowledge) to a younger person would not register with your notion of "personal growth" but nonetheless is a superior betterment at the group level, and thus has a much scalable adaptive value.
I see the claim but don't see support for it, or why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense).