[robotrout]

Systems that depend on infinite population growth seem like a bad idea. Mayors of cities who constantly need to grow their population base to prop up housing prices, all the way up to countries who constantly need to grow their population base to prop up entitlements ponzis. At some point, you end up with an unstable system that will fail catastrophically. While you wait for that time, the average quality of life decreases incrementally for all (till the collapse, when the quality of life may collapse all the way to death for many).

Non-debt based monetary systems (gold, bitcoin, etc) will result in slower growth, since developers and governments will need to wait until they can attract enough saved capital to start their projects. This is why people turn up their noses at these systems. But is slower growth really such a bad thing?

[TeMPOraL]

> But is slower growth really such a bad thing?

Yes and no. But it doesn't matter, since countries are competing with each other. If one decides to forgo growth, it'll lose politically and economically against those who didn't.

[robotrout]

I agree. It has to be obvious to those in charge that this debt bubble that every single country is blowing cannot continue to grow forever, yet no country has succeeded in halting or even slowing their debt growth.

They're trapped, as you say, by each other. None can get off the ride before the others do. They will all need to fail together in a worldwide economic collapse, or agree unilaterally on some sort of global debt reset.

But that's not how grownups should run a planet, and it will doubtless lead to a lot of human death. It's already lead to uncontrolled growth that has damaged ecologies, fisheries, and aquifers for thousands of years to come.