Your discussion with Tainter raises the following question.

On the one hand, we know that if we really go for sustainable energy, it's far lower energy returned on energy invested will lead to a (serious) decline in our economic growth.

A burden that will have to be carried far more fairly than today if we don't want chaos. Which will require a major social transformation...

On the other hand, we also know from historian Ian Morris, that economic growth is needed to prevent societal collapse during such periods of turmoil and duress.

Doesn't this implicate a painful CATCH 22?….

We cannot get off fossil fuels safely WITHOUT a major societal transformation BUT we cannot back its safety by sufficient economic growth?

Haven't we missed our economic window of opportunity at the end of the '70s? Wasted it in the Greed is Good era? Is there a safe way out? An interesting dilemma I'm still trying to understand.

https://gl-10190.medium.com/debunking-degrowth-5c11ae794d1d)