Point #2 ought to be good reason for us to move past our archaic consumption-based economies into something where less consumption isn't considered a "problem."
The assumption that a company must grow forever is a trap, IMO. If you aren't beholden to produce returns for investors, there's nothing wrong with hitting a goal and then calling it a day.
We mistake equilibrium for failure. If you're earning a good living and operating sustainably, there's no reason to continue to extract more and more wealth. We really need to decouple the idea of success away from a requirement of endless YoY growth.
Not every business or product needs to go on for ever. I think there's still plenty of value in a finite project. Ship your product, hit your financial goals, then retire or move on.
That's a good start, but even that path has problems if orgs follow it as prescribed and do "too well" at it.
Let's say your appliance is so well built that it lasts for generations: Great for the consumer, great for the environment, but not so great for the business that is no longer sustainable under a traditional economy.
Why should we settle for this gaping built-in flaw of traditional economics when better ones could replace them?
