> I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried t

> I think you interpret "growth" in a narrow framework of your perspective. I'd say the same for your premise. Your framework was "growth == better", I tried to demonstrate why that is not adequate, and in certain cases harmful. > They deteriorate without it, like a tree without enough water and sun And anyone with house plants know that too much of any is equally deadly as too little. > why it's mutually exclusive with growth (in any sense). Simple opportunity cost. An elderly doing a cultural transfer of skills, perspectives and knowledge to their grandkids, neighborhood, junior professionals etc vs. doing their own personal growth things. Don't get me wrong, in this case maybe getting a master's in AI and combining all that with their existing competencies and then doing a culture transfer could be the optimal choice here, but the time and energy cost of the activities pursued has to occupy disparate spaces either way. So no, personal growth at all costs is not the most optimal thing at all times.