[kortilla]

No, the need for growth is not related to uneven distribution. You can have perfectly even distribution of a really unproductive economy and everyone will be just as poor.

If we want to get enough food, shelter, and medicine for the population of the world to just not be in the brink of starvation, homelessness and death from simple diseases, we need more economic growth.

The economic output of a society is independent of the wealth distribution mechanisms. We wouldn’t magically gain all of the output we needed by just switching to socialism.

A simple example is a workforce building houses without tools and a workforce building houses with tools. The latter will have more economic output than the former and will be better for society overall, regardless of what share of the profits the workers get.

[jhrmnn]

My interpretation of the parent was that there is some hypothetical point at which basic needs (whatever they are) of all humans are satisfied and additional growth is about more comfort/less work. At that point one could in principle stop with growth. And with very skewed distribution, this hypothetical point is way further into the future than with even distribution.

[Dylan16807]

> And with very skewed distribution, this hypothetical point is way further into the future than with even distribution.

Yeah, but this is very different from saying growth is only necessary because of uneven wealth.