Ted Howard raised the following point. "We'll need quite a period of descent/collapse before things settle down to a level where we could even dream of steady state..."
Absolutely, Ted. But the mechanism of a steady state economy also allows for managed degrowth during that descent by enabling the treasury to remove currency from circulation at a rate appropriate to the rate of degrowth. Of course, this should have happened decades ago. Perhaps when global GDP per capita began to fall after 1976 or '78 we should have realised the growth model was faulty. In fact, those who know the history of fractional reserve banking know that the monster should have been strangled at birth.
The present system of banking was founded upon a criminal fraud perpetrated by the mediaeval goldsmiths that governments, instead of crushing, bought in to- as it allowed them to raise money for wars on a "buy now- pay later" basis. Ironically, intrinsic unavoidable growth was probably a consequence unintended by the original perpetrators of the "goldsmiths fraud". They would have seen it as a simple "trick" to extract extra value from the economy without actually owning the required capital.
Unfortunately (for almost all!), the financial rules that institutionalise the growth model do a very good job of concentrating wealth towards the most wealthy, ultimately to the detriment of all others, so this elite will not give up their "right" to create debt money without a deadly fight.
There is no doubt in my mind that banking with money created as debt is the main driver of resource depletion and all associated woes, but the bankers are vampires, drawing the life-blood from their already anaemic victim, knowing the victim will soon die but unable to refrain because of their own psychopathy.
Arguably, it is now too late to institute these reforms in time to avert catastrophic collapse. However, It is still necessary to state that there is an alternative in order to discredit the present norm in the minds of those we wish to influence whose inaction is sustained by the belief that the present system is somehow "just" or "inevitable".
It is not for no good reason that, despite the obfuscation of modern clerics, usury is forbidden to Jew, Christian and Muslim alike, and most likely in all other religions too. It was seen by the ancients as the most damaging evil. How much more damaging then to perpetrate the "uber-usury" of lending money that doesn't yet exist?