This article runs on yesterday's logic.

1. the population curve must follow the energy curve. At some point, the decent will level off to a stable state land/energy-carrying capacity level. A decent rate of 1,6-1,7 is economically still safely viable until the flexure point is reached and we can maintain our societies at the replacement rate.

2. in economic terms less people also means more ecological and other value true assets per person. True cost accounting gives a far more honest economic perspective. Less means more richdom per person, so to use the inconsistent term, more “economic growth” per capita.

3. Most of today's jobs don't produce any real value to society. The quicker we end this financialized economy the quicker we free more than enough hands to focus on what really contributes to a good life in our societies. Machteld Huber distilled 4 useful parameters on health: eat predominantly fresh unprocessed local seasonal food, lead an active natural physical life (walking, gardening, etc.), live with a sense of purpose/meaning, be part of a community and I've added, live in a physically healthy environment. Our current industrial capitalist system offers painfully little of any of these 5 fundamental qualities.

4. Per definition* growth is defined as human development. Which I have narrowed down to “our ability to create and maintain high levels of future uncertainty” This might puzzle many:) But in short, it means that human development doesn't need to stop if our current rather backward system grinds to its end. *https://gl-10190.medium.com/debunking-degrowth-part-ii-aded18d44652