My problem with the &quot;finite growth&quot; narrative I see often, is the fact that they always assume that growth is strictly a function of natural, material resources. To paint a caricature: they almost seem to say &quot;We had 100 people and 50 ingots of iron and we produced 200 forks and 30 novels. If we&#x27;d have 50 people and 25 ingots of iron, we&#x27;d only produce 100 forks and 15 novels.&quot; Which is retarded. One of the main (if not THE main) factors of growth is scientific progress - something that is mostly immaterial. The whole Internet revolution was made possible using machines that don&#x27;t exactly run on steam and copious amount of coal.<p>We are constantly learning to make more with less.<p>Until the finite growth theories start incorporating this notion, I will not treat them seriously.<p>The other problem I have with these theories, is that they tend to draw very weird and bolshevist crowd who want to start redistributing wealth, rationing out food, and breeding a &quot;stable population&quot; as soon as possible.