perhaps the capitalists here can answer this question, I've never seen it properly answered, or answered at all, for that matter. capitalism needs growth in order to survive. this shouldn't be controversial. from recall about 2% growth is needed to stave off deflation, job loss, and the other nasty stuff.
yet the Earth is finite, and here we run into a problem, a 'contradiction'. unless the esteemed capitalist innovation can overcome the first law of thermodynamics, or locate other Earth-like planets to transport people to and extract resources from, we eventually hit a wall of sorts. the use of nature as an infinite source of raw material and dumping ground for externalized costs is necessarily finite.
when exactly this needs to be addressed could constitute a different conversation, which we can leave off for the time being.
...in order to survive, capitalism will grow; this is
instinctively natural. Is this what your looking to define, redefine or ignore?