[bit-anarchist]

You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth.

Also, capitalism doesn't need perpetual growth either (anymore than other system, that is). Independent and worker-owned media are still facets of capitalism, for starters.

[setopt]

> You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth.

That sounds self-contradicting. How do you define «sustainability» in that case?

[bit-anarchist]

The property of preserving/sustaining itself.

[setopt]

Okay. Do you then consider an equilibrium to be inherently unsustainable?

If you take «growth» to be defined as d(something)/dt>0, I’d posit that any equilibrium by definition has zero net growth, whether it’s a static or dynamic equilibrium.

[bit-anarchist]

For social systems, yes.

That said, in long run, there's both a tendency for most growth to fall and for basically nothing to be sustainable.