The author makes the assumption that economic growth has to come from an increase in material output, resources consumed etc. when it can very well be the opposite. "Number of atoms in the universe" has nothing to do with anything, and is just used to (incorrectly) turn their subjective argument into a scientific one.
You can reduce emissions and grow the economy, stabilize your population and grow the economy, move from physical goods to digital and grow the economy, reduce number of hours worked and grow the economy. Heck a few thousand years in the future we could all wire up our brains directly into hyperspace and still grow at 1% per year.
You can reduce emissions and grow the economy, stabilize your population and grow the economy, move from physical goods to digital and grow the economy, reduce number of hours worked and grow the economy. Heck a few thousand years in the future we could all wire up our brains directly into hyperspace and still grow at 1% per year.