Economics

since all economies are supersets of ecology, it's important to keep in mind that capitalists gamble calories for population growth.

everything else is a downstream instrument. 

perhaps, some forms of capital resemble successful gambling, like social/culture. other forms can resemble "the house", like intellectual property.

at some point, this can be temporary leverage for "naming" value from a foregone gamble, but it can only occupy so much proportion to total gambles, and less so the total lossy procurement of calories.

can technology replace population growth? if it yields a higher proportion of gambles with less direct ecological cost, then economists "in the house" will choose it, agnostic to any particular growth. consider the dual use of the Haber process, following the fossil fuel boom. it's complicated.

there's no warranty of calories or gamblers, just very strong assurances of both. cultural capital is key to growing and securing these organically, otherwise technology is ambivalent.