Last I checked meme "theory" was a metaphor, not a scientific theory.
Did your research also reveal any defects in the idea? You get way more out of labels than is in them.
We evolved to use tools but also to cooperate, not just to compete.
I have not denied that. Mother Nature likes a good coordinate plus-sum outcome as much as the next guy.
There was more cooperation than competition in Stone Age nomadic bands, and we evolved to work well in small groups, not in huge societies.
Interesting quantitative comparison. I assume you can show the math. But it's beside the point, because technology changes the environment. We "evolved" to do what works best with the tools we have. As the tools improve, what is best changes. Cavemen did what they could, Medieval people did what they could, and we moderns do what we can. Same evolution, different environments. I frequently quote the line about the past being a foreign country. The Stone Age is a different planet.
Do you dispute the scientific warnings that our expansionist, growth-based capitalist societies are largely to blame for global warming?
No, I explicitly accepted them. You asked whether we should recognize the environmentalist's pattern of the ultimate self-destructiveness of expansive capitalist societies, and I said: "We" do. You recognize it, I recognize it, and most experts recognize it. I don't see any convoluted negatives there, or any ambiguity at all. But what we elites (including you) see and what most people see are different things.
As for whether growth is a permanent good, I also wrote explicitly that it may be too late for us to save ourselves. It's all there. You just don't want to take "yes" for an answer.
I follow Nietzsche, Spinoza, and others in searching for a way to ground morality in aesthetics and thus in a stance towards the world that's comparable to the scientist's detached, objective one.
That approach seems to me benighted. Those guys all lived in that foreign country I mentioned, where even a genius like Newton assumed the universe was simple because God would not make it complicated. It reminds me of what I call the "wantalogical" proof of God's existence: If there were no God, life would really suck, so there must be a God. Even in the past, Voltaire understood that, but he had the political wit to style God's non-existence as a counterfactual. I don't.
Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.
Facts discourage. Art uplifts. Take the win.