Why degrowth economics doesn't add up even if you accept its premises

I've tried to steelman degrowth seriously. The core claim is that GDP growth in wealthy nations is now decoupled from welfare improvements, that resource throughput is ecologically incompatible with continuing growth, and therefore we should aim for a steady-state or shrinking economy. Problem 1: Most rich-country growth is services, not resource throughput. Software, healthcare, education — these don't scale with energy and materials the way manufacturing did. The assumption that growth = resource consumption increasingly doesn't hold. Problem 2: Political economy. Degrowth under democracy means winning elections on a platform of 'we will make you materially poorer in the short run.' The redistributive claims that are supposed to compensate for this don't have the political coalition to be implemented. Problem 3: It doesn't account for the global South. The poorest two billion people have a legitimate claim to growth. A global framework that restricts growth while hundreds of millions lack sanitation, nutrition security, and health access is a moral problem, not just a political one. I take the ecological limits seriously. Green growth/decarbonisation might fail. But 'use less' is not a path through a world with eight billion people and genuine unmet needs.