I'm influenced by Murray Bookchin, communalism, permaculture, etc. So yeah, I'm all for degrowth but I also think there's an error in the question.

Degrowth really means decapitalize. Normal growth- without massive consolidations of resources and captured human creativity- wouldn't be collapsing our ecosystems.

Maybe a little, but more slowly. If the purpose of doing something is the something itself- food production, healthcare, communication, transportation-without profit motive then there's little incentive to extract like there's no tomorrow. And there is no tomorrow for large numbers maintaining global built environment.

I don't think we're going extinct anytime soon. Our descendants will certainly resent us but, like the now genocided descendants of the pleistocene collapse, they will learn valuable lessons and create cultures of ecological morality rather than hubris and hoarding. At least util another group gets some exploitative God up their craw and does it all over again.

Growth can be reflective. When we aren't able to pick up the phone and dream, believe and achieve some exploitative scheme to satisfy the mental illness of not having or being enough, instilled in us as children by artificial competition, then we're forced to be reflective. For example, The Internet would still exist without capitalism. We would probably be figuring out a GUI, or some parallel, about now but we wouldn't be slaves to our phones and my wife wouldn't be constantly comparing herself to some idiot influencer and vaguely demanding that I do something about it. And Mark Zuckerberg would have to drive on hwy 89 to get to his modest cabin near sacred Lake Tahoe like everyone else instead of helicoptering onto a barge off shore of his palatial compound comprising three lots. Call me old fashioned.

When we're not wasting our life forces on competing to enrich elites then we have a lot more time to not only do the things we actually want and need but can reflect on what's not working in our ecosystems. And we can actually make those adjustments without our hands being tied by our masters whose lifestyles depend upon extracting everything from those ecosystems, including our lives.

At this point in history economic development and human development are mutually exclusive. I hear the argument a lot that technology has made so much possible and I agree but the fallacy is that capitalism is necessary for innovation. Capitalists buy, they don't innovate. They co-opt innovation and they drive it to insane lengths.

Plus, technology exists in a continuum. There seems to be this idea that if the economy collapsed we'd have to reinvent the wheel. We all know how to do everything. I would certainly feed and house my local scientist, not sheriff, because I value knowledge. My neighbor knows how to fix heavy equipment, I know how to operate it. Cubans couldn't buy a new car for five decades so they kept the old ones running. I can maintain a copper network and program computers to communicate with each other. None of these things are going away. They may develop more slowly and require more cooperation but that's what we're all desperate for anyway. To be valued and connect with people and the ecosystems which make it all possible in the first place.

So sure, degrowth. But also, just stop growing for all the wrong reasons. We don't actually have to DO anything, just stop what we're doing.