The typical counter-argument to complaints about the impossibility of endless growth is that growth/gdp are usually sufficiently vaguely defined that it is poss

The typical counter-argument to complaints about the impossibility of endless growth is that growth/gdp are usually sufficiently vaguely defined that it is possible to go on forever – there isn’t any fundamental relationship between growth and resource use. I don’t really understand your last paragraph; it feels to me like it is written from a very American perspective. There seem to exist countries that achieve economic growth while having sane healthcare, childcare, etc, and it feels clear to me that U.S. issues are more related to the current local optimum the political system has come to rest in than to some obsession with growth. So what is the argument here about growth? Is it that the other countries don’t actually have growth or that they don’t actually provide stability on social issues or what?