A very good thought motivating report. My simplistic view: it's a system (be it finite or not) composed of finite systems. The obvious example for me is O&G exploration. When I started in 1975 there was a big new play starting: the Deep Tuscaloosa in La. Even the concept that such a play could exist where it did was ground breaking. At that time there were still a lot of places to drill along the Texas coast but these opportunities were just the residual of the plays discovered in the 30's and 40's. Those plays have now withered to very little residual potential as has the Tusc. This was no surprise to the industry: it very easy to see the limits of each play even in its initial development. There are always obvious physical limits to every geologic province. Today the Deep Water plays of Brazil and the GOM are hot commodities. But their individual limits are as obvious as plays discovered 60 years ago. There may certainly be new plays yet to be discovered but that's another matter. In the end the earth is finite and all plays will be exploited eventually. and then there will be no more.

Now back to the economic system. Is there any part of the system that can truly be classified as infinite? Consider material transportation: Horses were replaced by wagons which were replaced by trains which have been replaced (to a degree) by trucks and airplanes. In the early part of the 20th century it must have been obvious to many that horses would be replaced by the ICE. Today many speculate that the ICE will be replaced by the X alternative vehicle (pick your own flavor). Some see nuclear as the system to replace FF for our primary energy source. Without resorting to Star Trek fantasies can we speculate on future technologies which might make the ecosystem sustainable? In the case of the financial system can we replace those finite components which have outlived their viability with a new component? Some may come up with logical though not practical solution. Mass murder of 4 or 5 billion folks could reset the system for sure. But that’s not likely (hopefully) to be employed.

Wide open possibilities for some sense of stability. Have at it.

The real issue to me is not whether there are "limits" in that there are never limits if you're always able to apply more effort, but how to define the limit of how return is worth the effort. I'm working on a more formal treatment, but it's simple to understand that if increasing investment makes resources increasingly unavailable, that itself is a real final limit to the usefulness of growth, and counterproductive. I think the real limit of growth is the inflection point right smack in the middle of the "S" curve, because that's where increasing investment produced decreasing returns.

Thanks for the help in making it better!