Rather than argue for or against its validity it seems more useful to plan to ameliorate likely possible effects. As someone who has retired from the "rat race"

Rather than argue for or against its validity it seems more useful to plan to ameliorate likely possible effects. As someone who has retired from the "rat race" and is living on about 1/3 my previous income I know there are plenty of ways to economize and reduce economic, carbon, pollution and other footprints. Homes do not need to be McMansions and much of the reason people buy expensive houses is to get on the price increase spiral bandwagon. Tiny and manufactured homes are good antidotes. Most land can be made productive using permaculture principles that mostly try to build a healthy soil, e.g. Forest holding back the Sahara, Geoff Lawton's enclave in Jordan, etc. Pollution can be reduced by manufacturing for recycling. For example food/beverage packaging and bottles can be made in a form that is easy to reuse for example as stacking flower/vegetable pots. Post your kitchen scraps into the top pot and let worms convert it into compost to supercharge your vegetable garden. Heating and cooling energy requirements can be greatly reduced using 1970s passive solar technology putting thermal mass in your roof or sun-facing wall augmented with electronics to automate blinds. I should add that in my family, my parents had 3 children, who collectively had two grandchildren, and now two great-grandchildren. So there is no growth in our family.