>growth for the sake of growth is pointless Is "sustainability" for the sake of "sustainability" pointful? For all we know, everything may just be reduced back

>growth for the sake of growth is pointless Is "sustainability" for the sake of "sustainability" pointful? For all we know, everything may just be reduced back to energy in a Big Crunch in the future, so the outcome is the same regardless. Is a civilization that languished in stagnancy for millions of years have any more paticular meaning than one that burned brightly but briefly?