The world is based on an economic model which drives everything that goes on here, including what we do and how we act, and not just from the work standpoint. And it obviously determines the share of the world's resources that each one of us has the right to claim. There is of course the all-powerful thing called "money", and to earn it within the economic boundaries is all there is to life for almost the entire human race of the day. And the model is designed to grow all the time - prices have to rise, people have to keep earning more than before, entities have to increase in size or volume - basically everything is made to behave like a living creature - a human, to be more specific. Even the denial of death is not uncharacteristic. Why should growth be a given in a world which is fixed in size and the resources it has to offer?
Before I go further, I must declare: I've started reading the book - "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity" by Douglas Rushkoff, and the thoughts above are influenced by the first 70 pages of the book that I've read so far. I couldn't wait till I completed it before expressing my thoughts, so here I am.
There is also a fundamental reason, in my view, behind aspiring growth which is not entirely just about crazy pursuit - it is the gradual uncovering of the mysteries of the universe by us, and which has continuously led to new possibilities for better life for us. And in principle the entire machinery of the world economy is after enabling that better life using whatever resources and knowledge we have, while also constraining its distribution with a parameter called affordability. While it can still be argued that the standard of living has increased even for the lowest of the affordability layers, the benefits increasingly get concentrated at the top. In other words, people grow at different rates.
The dominant economic thought promotes boundary-less pursuit of self-interest by individuals as a way of achieving overall prosperity, and thereby recognizes the fact that there will be unequal achievement by individuals, leading to different classes of human beings, although it claims that every class would experience net improvement in its living standard (or perish?). As even if everyone was brought to an equal level and made to run, there will always be someone winning the race and someone far behind struggling to catch up - as abilities differ, and we're born with pre-decided levels of most of them. There may be more cozy tracks to run now than in the past or better shoes to help the feet - and that's the overall upliftment achieved. But our unfair models still allow the strong to get more food than the weak because of their corresponding inherent ability to compete for food, resulting in the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. We whisper of equality, but we cannot have it in the current economic model. We talk instead of equal opportunity, which is also not really a fair offer as unequal individuals do not have an equal ability to convert an opportunity. In a way we have extended God's 'natural selection' into the way the world is run, so that we can discard individuals competing poorly. If God could do this with every life form, why can't we do it with ourselves? But whoever is playing God in this model we have made for ourselves is one of us, and is also the highest beneficiary of this economic natural selection. And that's the conflict of interest which screws with the world order.
