But it cannot go on forever. Endless growth is not possible.

That doesn't mean that we're anywhere close to the limits to growth (to coin a phrase). Inputs are limited and finite by what's on the planet (for now) - but outputs are limited only by the creativity, skill, knowledge, and technology of humanity. Which can - and have - grown much much faster than Malthus or Ehrlich envisioned.

And no one need "endless growth." At some point, you would reach a 'post-scarcity' society - where any physical object can be provided to any person near-instantly at near-zero cost. For an analog, consider the world of Star Trek: TNG, or Iain Banks' Culture series. If you grow enough, you reach the point where you've grown enough - where additional growth is possible, but just unnecessary.

Regardless of whether you think such a society is possible (within the laws of physics or culturally), there's no reason to believe that the central thesis of Malthus or Ehrlich - that we can't have growth without "using up" the world - is correct.

Albaby