'Past, present, and future of economic growth: how we should rethink it' with Daniel Susskind

Over the past two centuries, economic growth has freed billions from poverty and made our lives far healthier and longer.
As a result, the unfettered pursuit of growth defines economic life around the world. Yet this prosperity has come at an enormous price: deepening inequalities, destabilising technologies, environmental destruction and climate change. Confusion reigns. For many, in our era of anaemic economic progress, the worry is slowing growth - in the UK, Europe, China and elsewhere. Others understandably claim, given its costs, that the only way forward is through 'degrowth', deliberating shrinking our economies.
At this time of uncertainty about growth and its value, award-winning economist Daniel Susskind has written Growth: A Reckoning and in this talk, with Professor Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalisation and Development, he will argue that we cannot abandon growth but instead we must redirect it, making it better reflect what we truly value. He will explores what really drives growth, and offers original ideas for combatting our economic slowdown.

[@MinishMan]

It's a great presentation, and I have to state that I'm completely on the other side of this but recognise it's worth attempting to be optimistic.
For me the main problem is the straw-manning of the idea of growth as quantity of resource use, stating that it is ONLY quality.
Quantity has a quality all its own. This is demonstrable with so many thought experiments. The cost of producing 100 iPhone prototypes is tens of millions of dollars for each phone. The cost of production phones is low hundreds of dollars. By using more resources - making more phones - the phones get dramatically cheaper. That's how industrial economics works.
Imagine if fossil fuels didn't cause co2 emissions but some inert gas instead like nitrogen. We could all go on so many more road trips, do more international travel (typically ranked as one of the single biggest sources of 'utility' for most people in the world). So many more businesses are viable when fossil fuel energy is provided as cheaply as possible (ask yourself; where are all the EVs that are letting Europe feel smug about our emissions reductions coming from? They're not being built in Europe, obviously, that's totally uneconomical. They're built in the USA and China, where coal, oil and gas are used with reckless abandon to power industry as cheaply as possible).
And this above point was conveniently ignored when talking about the price per W of solar panels. China has driven down solar panel cost of production precisely because they have never yet stopped increasing coal usage for energy. The top is not in sight. The absolute best case scenario is that we are trading dramatically increased short-term emissions today for the potential of a long, slow decline in overall emissions. However, that long, slow decline is nowhere in sight. It hasn't even begun.
I really believe we can only be optimistic about the decoupling of growth from carbon-intensity when the entire globe has demonstrated it.
Right now we are just shuffling the emissions off 'over there' so we can feel (and sanctimoniously act) morally superior.
Fundamentally, we have to make physical things in the actual world of atoms and just saying 'we're not going to do it here, here we'll all push pixels around on screens instead' is NOT a solution.