> the _actual_ question is more like: "Given the finite resources of the environment, human lifespans, available knowledge.. and so on..., at what point does economic and industrial growth in <_these specific ways_> stop adding to overall human happiness, utility and long term survival?"
Take out the industrial growth requirement and other crud and this question naturally simplifies to “given finite resources how can we keep increasing human happiness, utility and surivival?” And the answer is simple. Use fewer resources to create more happiness. Which we’re doing. Energy and material intensity of GDP is falling. We need it to fall faster. And we probably need more metrics. But fundamentally, the issue isn’t a problem of stupid people. It’s one of limited definitions of production, growth and what makes us happy.
GDP is not a measure of happiness, it is a measure of revenue.
Also GDP is meaningless when each "domestic" sovereignty can externalize its costs to poorer nations. It would make much more sense to study some globally-determined quantities, considering the completely globalized economy we have engendered.
> Energy and material intensity of GDP is falling.
Is this true globally, or just for specific economies? (My true quandary is probably evident:) Are those economies getting measurably more efficient overall, or have we just offloaded the energy and material intensive production?
Take out the industrial growth requirement and other crud and this question naturally simplifies to “given finite resources how can we keep increasing human happiness, utility and surivival?” And the answer is simple. Use fewer resources to create more happiness. Which we’re doing. Energy and material intensity of GDP is falling. We need it to fall faster. And we probably need more metrics. But fundamentally, the issue isn’t a problem of stupid people. It’s one of limited definitions of production, growth and what makes us happy.