It is valid insofar as the current socioeconomic systems depend on constant, infinite growth to continue existing. The question here would be "is focusing on m

It is valid insofar as the current socioeconomic systems depend on constant, infinite growth to continue existing. The question here would be "is focusing on maintaining growth the best/most sensible approach?". We see it in the economy all the time—companies go to incredible lengths, and often end up engaging in deceptive, immoral, monopolistic, and predatory practices, in order to keep growing. When their numbers show that they're not growing they freak out, investors panic, and sometimes end up in a death spiral as a result. In a world where resources are finite, the room to grow is also finite. Now, I've seen arguments to the effect that our current supply of resources, if well managed, would be able to sustain the current population without issues. That very well might be true, but I suspect our current systems are not at all suited for sustaining continuous, endless growth. The cracks are already very visible in our current systems, I think. And I'd argue that there is a positive feedback loop in effect already when it comes to population decline—the system expects you to generate wealth and growth to sustain it, but you get less and less in return, which affects your ability and/or desire to contribute to increasing the population and taking on additional responsibilities and costs. This, in turn, leads to the system demanding more from the existing population, further impacting their ability/desire to reproduce, and so on. I don't want to fall into the "rich people bad" meme, but it's much easier to worry about population decline when the existing socioeconomic structures are already in your favour.