I'd really like to see you point to specific instances of this.

I could point to any number of examples refuting this, but really prefer you lay your cards on the table first.

I mean you're doing that right now. You seem to believe we can't have infinite growth. Okay...and? Do you have anything more to add other then a mathematical reductio ad absurdum talking about 1000 year timespans? What tangible actions and economic model do you believe this should inform in the next 5 to 10 years, which you as a citizen of a democracy have some role in choosing and advocating for?

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37386474>

Again: I have sources. You?

I'm reading this as you don't.

Update: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37399144>

Your whole post here isn't a thought at all. Nor an argument. It's you linking to a half-dozen separate arguments, and presenting no original or summarizing thought on what you think those things conclude.

My question was quite specific: what do you think we should do in the next 5 to 10 years? Apparently you've read widely on this topic! So widely that when asked this question, the only thing you did was throw book titles and author names around and talk about how great they are. Rather then anything about what they say.

I mean presumably all these distinguished luminaries drew some actionable conclusions right? Because you are calling for actionable things to happen - such as?

Your specific assertion was "Conversely the people who argue against growth never have any answers they want to elaborate on."

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37386379>

I gave multiple specific authors who have proposed plans. Yes, it's a number of titles; I assure you that's only the thinnest scraping of the broader literature. Or to put it plainly: there are many people who've had "answers they want to elaborate on" ... and you're now complaining that there are too many of them?

Tough to please.

I've asked you now three times who it is you're claiming has no answers.

I'm not exactly still waiting. But if you'd care to provide a response to that question I'd appreciate it.

I'm not asking for a thesis. Just a listing of who or what references you're pointing at.

Seems to be a considerable challenge for you to do so, just sayin'.

The optimal strategy now for unlimited growth and some future limit on growth bei g hit when there are competitors are likely the same. Take advantage of it as much as possibly for as long as possibly.

Given two countries where one lints it's economic growth and the other doesn't, if they're given another few hundred years before a limit is hit, which one is in a better place to respond when that limit is hit? Does the country that minutes itself even still exist as it did, or was it taken over by a stronger one (whether economically, militarily or culturally)?

...No crap it's a zero-sum game! We've been screaming it from the bloody rooftops while economists and charlatans have gone on and on chasing alpha, instead of really focusing on breaching the most critical breakthroughs we need. Near limitless clean power, closed cycle industrial processes, and bloody innovations in either transport, agri-husbandry, or medicine.

But no.

War. War, real estate, and more pretend finance for finance sake. Either that or mass producing the tools of tyranny.

You have just given a list of achievable technologies which would allow growth within the current resource constraints. What do you think "new energy sources" are if not economic growth?

At some point unlimited growth would mean the heat death of earth. Remember all used energy no matter how green the source emits heat.

Even stars have limits to their energy. If you don't believe in limits then you aren't accepting physical reality.

Again, I'd really like to know who specifically you are referring to with "the people who argue against growth never have any answers they want to elaborate on".

I've mentioned numerous specific examples refuting that here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37399144>