I think you maybe contradicted your logic a little, by saying that economics itself is a closed system that misses energy and resources are created outside its domain, they just magically appear, but then you use the laws of thermodynamics, to imply growth isn't possible. A finer point of thermodynamics is that it can only be applied deterministically to closed systems. If the system is open with an external energy source literally shining in, as the sun does on Earth, then the system is not closed, so we can't use laws of thermodynamics which only to closed boxes to try to predict how things will go on the planet.

Without understanding energy, we can't really understand creation, like plants do, nor the difference between creation and destruction. One heats and the other cools. Guess which is which.

I would say this is one of the biggest limitations we see, especially actually in mainstream science and economics, both are heavlly dependent on profit, which is technically an energy lie.

This is something not talked about because it undermines all business, and even all law - there can be no such thing as a solid legal contract which is built on a lie, so actually this invalidates all agreements made between humans. Technically, anyone accused of breaking any contract now can say in court it was never valid, built on a lie, the energy lie of profit, therefore the contract was always null and void. I know we'd probably still get hammered by the court, but it goes to show how corrupted the system is, that this has never been sorted out, it pays those gaining too much to just leave it broken.

It isn't possible to gain energy profit, and money is energy, always physically, so when profit is made, it comprises energy taken from somewhere else, usually somewhere poor, that couldn't really afford to lose it.

And all of it, all of the energy taken by profit, from the planet, since the planet is the only energy store that can sustain supplying more energy out than in for any length of time, heats the planet, this is what is directly relatied to temperature rise, it isn't time related at all, but profit related.

This is before we talk about CO2, which is just a multiplier of the root problem, that we keep taking energy out of the planet.

That should be kept in mind anytime a company says it is doing this or that to be more sustainable, the real question is did it make more profit. If it did then it didn't do anything at all for sustainablity, because it took more energy from the planet Unless the company was completely solar powered, paying all wages by monetised solar energy. But then why would it need to do any other business, than just supply monetised solar energy to everyone for free, after its made what it needs itself? Its the opposite, the two things sustainablity and profit literally can't work together.

An interesting nugget to end a longish ramble (Apologies); every binary bit of information defined, lowers temperature by 0.69 x Boltzmann's constant in degrees C. This doesn't come close to compensating for the energy converted to heat from extracted sources when it is done by computers, for example, but when it is done by plants, powered purely from the sun, it has to result in a net cooling effect, subtracting from the heating effect if no information was being defined.

Notice the same would apply to computers if they were all solar powered also, in fact it applies to all things powered directly from the sun, us too, as we might soon become.

Then maybe you'll accept that the more poeople, and industry we can put to use, using the energy of the sun, the better.

We literally can't create enough, there is no limit to real creation.