Every single economic growthist—whether liberal, socialist, centrist, or any other sort—is still a growthist only because they lack a basic understanding of ecological sciences (or are bad faith nihilists!)

A lot of growthists are trained in economics or social sciences, or are pundits focused on econ/policy. Most people in general have never received any education in ecology, but economists in particular seem willfully hostile to it

There’s no pedagogical or scientific reason economics and ecology should be so conceptually and structurally divorced as disciplines. After all, they share the Greek root οἶκος (“house”) and the phenomena they study are (now) deeply intertwined

There is an ideological reason economics and ecology have been sundered: it’s impossible to sustain support for liberal-capital hegemony & the growth imperative when you have even an elementary understanding of ecology (if one has the slightest intellectual integrity)

Right-wing economists & adjacent pundits remain adamantly ignorant about basic processes that underpin everything on which economies & economics rely. It’s easier to keep your ideology intact creating fantasy models than living in the real world eg: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1309171221758607365

A corollary is that even many leftist economists (& pundits) have avoided ecology, I guess because they see themselves as concerned with purely human systems. This leaves them with a stunted understanding of human-nature relationships, and therefore a shallow grasp of economics

But of course given Marx’s interest in the relationship between ecology and economy, there’s no good conceptual reason for leftist economists and pundits to continue so thoroughly ignoring it

Problem with the left-wing growthists is they're advocating major departures from status quo economics with significantly flawed prescriptions. A surgeon advocating particular solutions to heart attacks without knowing about blood makes addressing heart attacks that much harder