Most often that cataclysmic change is violent, fiercely opposed and not voluntary.

I agree that such cataclysmic change can be violent. It's a problem. One also thinks, though, of the fall of the Soviet Union, which in the 1950's and 1960's we would only have imagined in the context of nuclear war or a global conventional war. So there is the very great danger of violence, but violence is not inevitable by any means.

I'm not sure. The excess availability of cheap surplus energy has always meant that all that surplus energy is used. I can't think of a civilization that has resisted the temptation to grow (size, rate, complexity, etc) using available surplus energy.

I'm not sure either, but here's the case that growth is not inevitable. On human nature and consumption, check out "The High Price of Materialism" by Tim Kasser (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002, 149 Pages). This is a straightforward, nontechnical book that provides basic evidence that human nature does not desire indefinite expansion of consumption and in fact may be negatively correlated with consumption. It is reviewed here: http://compassionatespirit.com/high-price-of-materialism.htm

The problem is at the systems level. The social system rewards domination and dependence drives growth. If the economic system rewards those who are driven to earn and consume more, despite the fact that it doesn't make them happy, then neurotic, unhappy people will become the captains of industry and the leaders of the country.

TOD's own Jeff Vail has posted on "rhizome." Check out this:
http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/rhizome

His theory is that dependency drives growth. He proposes that instead of a society with a hierarchical structure which demands growth, we should have a structure of interconnected networks which are each minimally self-sufficient. Eliminate dependency, you eliminate the necessity of growth.

Here are three off-the-cuff proposals aimed at making social domination more difficult and reducing social dependence. (1) A steep progressive income tax (like say 100% on incomes over $100,000 U. S., or pick your own figure). (2) Advertising should not be tax-deductible, in fact it should be taxed as a public nuisance. (3) A guaranteed annual income, or "negative income tax" as proposed by Milton Friedman is another thought. This is wild and crazy stuff and this proposal needs elaboration to make practical -- one immediately thinks concerning the guaranteed annual income, where's the incentive to work at all? But these sorts of proposals are the kinds of things I'd like to see addressed.

Keith

"I'm not sure. The excess availability of cheap surplus energy has always meant that all that surplus energy is used. I can't think of a civilization that has resisted the temptation to grow (size, rate, complexity, etc) using available surplus energy."

Have you ever heard of Edo Japan?