This author misunderstands the basic argument: degrowth is not an alternative to growth - it is an alternative to catastrophic collapse. The point is not "the s

This author misunderstands the basic argument: degrowth is not an alternative to growth - it is an alternative to catastrophic collapse. The point is not "the same amount of resources can support more happy human lives", the point is "wouldn't it be nice to keep our civilization going over the long term, instead of heedlessly running it off a cliff?"