I find the idea that unless our civilisation changes its priorities from "unbounded growth" to "homeostasis" then we necessarily will suffer the "asymptotic burnout" comparable to papers written in 19th century predicting New York will drown in horse manure in next 75 years unless the growth is artificially stunted. Although the authors mention the role of periodic innovation as a factor that resets the curve of the resource consumption they dismiss it by stating the frequency of said innovation has to increase with increased energy usage and interconnectedness resulting in a certainty at some point innovation will not be fast enough to delay running out of resources. For this argument to work we have to accept unquestionably that "unbounded growth" has to continue until either a civilisation runs out of resources and regressed or achieves "enlightenment" and shifts its priorities towards homeostasis. To this I say why are they so sure, that as through growth of economic activity we raise our collective standard of living people don't start valuing their happiness over economic output? In fact observations of highly developed societies seem to support that. In addition the birth rate of people declines in modern societies often below replacement numbers so that "unbounded growth" looks really unlikely.