Reply #9: Then there is no solution, though that reasoning is flawed

[bhikkhu]

Possibly the best example of your statement is Europe rather than the US, because of the better social programs and safety nets and educational systems there. Poverty is still widespread, but the poor are basically provided for by the surplus of a set of fairly healthy and productive economies. No argument there.

But the argument comes in at the point where you say economic growth must continue in order to continue providing for the poor. I would say it doesn't and can't, and therefore I can say (in agreement with the OP) that economic growth can't continue.

If you say that poverty can't be solved in an economy that isn't growing, that's an absolute admission of defeat and failure. One of the main problems is resources; the resources that the planet provides more or less for free are arable land, fresh water, fossil fuel deposits, etc. All these are distributed around the planet and we utilize them freely for our own benefit. We cannot produce them, however, and therein lies the problem of growth - once we reach the limit of what the planet provides for free, we reach the limit of practical growth. Growth past that point inevitably creates poverty by depleting resources and increasing population, leaving smaller and smaller pieces of pie for each of a growing number of individuals.

As a counter to the "without growth there is no solution to poverty" statement, you can say that once the resources of the planet are at full utilization (and we are pretty close, especially on fresh water and arable land) the only way to reduce poverty is to have a declining population, such that the share available to each is increasing rather than decreasing.