but all their approaches to solutions are extremely economically illiterate. Not quite convinced about that. That, or the solutions you read aren't up to par w

but all their approaches to solutions are extremely economically illiterate. Not quite convinced about that. That, or the solutions you read aren't up to par with what science has to say about it. For starters not all presented solutions are even about degrowth? Just one example, take land use: the last talk I heard about that be a professor from a local university, people aren't exactly advocating 'less growth, less land use' but more like 'we expect synthetic meat to be x% of food intake so there's y% less land needed for animals and if all of that would be taken up by the produce needed for the synthetic meat that is actually i% more protein produced/acre' and 'x% of nice fertile land is going to degrade within the next decades because of erosion so if we implement some relatively simple measures that can be countered' and 'instead of dividing land into massive fields for production and some small dots of nature in between, as far as preservation goes it is often actually better to not do that but create one area for nature as large as those dots and optionally but even more optimal create lines of nature to connect those bigger patches'. Sounds economically viable to me, or at least certainly not 'extremely illiterate', and also not impossible.