Your argument establishes that a free lunch is desirable, not that a free lunch is feasible. There is a very good essay I came across relating a discussion bet

Your argument establishes that a free lunch is desirable, not that a free lunch is feasible. There is a very good essay I came across relating a discussion between a physicist and an economist on the question of neverending economic growth: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... It's worth reading in its entirety regardless of which side one stands on.