Sure but the anti-growth thing is a classic naive zero-sum fallacy. OP certainly thinks fondly of things built to last, and that’s admirable - but you should q

Sure but the anti-growth thing is a classic naive zero-sum fallacy. OP certainly thinks fondly of things built to last, and that’s admirable - but you should question the extent to which they actually value them. Let’s say OP is 30 and will buy one $3000 laptop per decade until age 70. If OP truly values things that last then they should be willing to pay at least $16000 today for a laptop with a 40 year lifespan. But that’s obviously silly! In reality OP values things that last to some extent but is willing to trade it off (newer, faster, lighter, cheaper) - they will undoubtedly choose to replace their laptop in the next 40 years. The same with quality, I can almost always offer you a higher-quality product - but at a certain point you will not be willing to pay for it.