You commented before about Degrowth being a bad idea, afaik. I'm curious as what you mean. I understand degrowth as an opposition to endless growth, and to quantifying progress as GDP over better metrics for quality of life.
I’m in favor of exploring alternative metrics to GDP as a standard measure of quality of life, but I am in favor of endless growth. “Endless growth on a finite planet is impossible” is very much just a misunderstanding of what growth is. If you take some vines and branches, make a flower crown out of them, and sell it to me for $5, then that’s economic growth. That counts as a contribution to GDP!
In reality, degrowth would mean a decline in aggregate living standards for most people, regardless of how the idea is sold. Perpetual growth is both possible and desirable, the tricky part is that there needs to be exponential increases in resource productivity for this to be the case (which is where our concerns should be).