It is crazy, because you haven't thought through the consequences of zero-growth. Basically any medical research for example is off the table, because if the population expands or life expectency increases, the economy has grown. Technical research is off the table, in fact the same production methods in use today must be set in stone, since an increase in efficiency is economic growth. Etc, etc.
In some parts of Europe, de-growth movement is quite popular and proposes to shift the focus of government policies from economic growth to population well-being (how this is reached lends itself to debates).
It doesn't mean to stop medical research or technical research, it means stopping to envision growth as being only economic growth. Growth can be seen as progress of human indicators, not the accumulation of things and economic growth for the sake of economic growth (which more and more benefits only rich people).
It originates in the simple fact that the economy can not grow infinitely in a finite world.
Mmm, but wealth isn't cash money - it's "stuff people want". It's entirely a human concept. If there is more "stuff people want" being produced then the economy is growing, it is just growing in a different direction. That the desired commodity is changing doesn't alter this. If people want longer lives, or more leisure time, or whatever, instead of more consumables, that all has economic consequences. The de-growth movement, a lot of it is shifting from many, cheap, mass-produced items to fewer, expensive, hand-made items.
Wealth is "tangible stuff people want". There is a balancing point where working less for the same amount of stuff becomes more important than getting more stuff. EX: Suppose you are working 80 hour weeks and making 200k in 5 years would you rather work 40 hour weeks and make 200k or 80 hour weeks and make 400k?
That is not to say working less is always a major goal, if someone was doing 20 hour work weeks for 30k they would probably rather have 20 hour work weeks that pay 60k than 10 hour work weeks that pay 20k. The great thing about free markets is they let people balance many of those less tangible goals. However, government policy can easily focus on progress that is out of whack with what people actually want so an understanding that the Chinese population might tolerate more pollution for more growth were an American population cares more about clean air than maximizing growth is nessesary to keep people happy.
I think it is more about removing "bad" growth. People moving to suburbs and so consuming more oil is such a bad growth. People buying high quality expensive bio food is (or at least shouldn't) be bad growth. Making processes more efficient is good, but in your case growth is a byproduct, not an end to a mean.
The US searched growth in the 2000 at every price, even at the price of over-lending. That is where growth dominates everything at the price of well being, society consistency and eventually economy - see the 2008 crash.
