And you're protesting way too much, as I've explained to you before at length. Your broken record keeps spinning too, doesn't it? After all, here you are again, harassing a mere Medium writer in defense of your humiliated profession that most people can't stand and don't trust (links below). You quibble and obfuscate how economics has no good-faith scientific ethos since it doubles down on its orthodoxy even after that orthodoxy has contributed to multiple calamities. You pretend that orthodox economics is an Ivory Tower discipline rather than a bought-and-paid-for arm of the establishment, that orthodox economic theory doesn't feed into widespread neoliberal rationalizations for an economic system that's arguably wrecking the planet. Why on Earth would you bother telling a nobody Medium writer to stop talking about economics unless your profession had a lot to hide?
My article's underlying point about "infinite economic growth" was about the clash between economic abstractions and natural realities. Instead of talking about long-term growth exactly, neoclassical economists talked about counterfactual conditions of general equilibrium. That concept implies that capitalism is a force for balance rather than for our self-destruction. So, instead of quibbling about the technical meanings of "growth," you might have grappled with the fact that a scientistic discipline that applies ideas from physics to social behaviour is bound to ignore all kinds of important factors.
Is that structural narrowness of economic vision accidental or propagandistic? Does capitalism benefit from being made to seem to rest on airtight scientific (physics-like) foundations? You can argue it either way, as lots of critics have done before me.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/should-we-trust-economists/276497/
https://harris.uchicago.edu/news-events/news/why-nobody-trusts-economists
https://qz.com/735166/the-end-of-economists-influence-is-nigh
https://www.ft.com/content/52458788-fcc0-11e9-98fd-4d6c20050229
