There would be one more moon than we have today.

Given a funtion y(x), then d(y(x))(h) (or dy for short) is the differential of y(x) which is defined as y'(x)*h where y'(x) is the derivative of y(x) with respect to x and h is a new variable.
The same goes for dx where x = i(x) is the identity function with respect to x. So given x' = 1 we have dx = h. So dy(x)/dx is just another way to write y'(x).

Are these natural sinks? The article is behind paywall.

While that's true in most cases, it's not always true. There have been examples of inexperienced people proposing a solution to a problem that actually turned out to be better or correct. Two examples that come to my mind are:

• One person suggesting to Elon Musk on Twitter to light all the engines of Starship during landing and shutting off two of them. If any engine fails you don't choose it to be the one you rely on for landing.

• One guy accidentally proving a mathematical hypothesis in a thread about the anime The Melancholy of Harui Suzumiya on 4chan.

Quite funny, although these are, of course, exceptions.

I don't get how some can possibly have a concern for "littering" a place that is huge, toxic, full of radiation, and possibly devoid of life. The only thing could be contamination with bacteria.

Economic growth is measured in GDP growth. GDP is roughly speaking the monetary value of the goods and services a country producers. The monetary value of a good or service roughly correlates with how much people want that thing. Hence it's almost tautological (trivially true) that people want economic growth.

Indeed economic growth isn't required. It usually just happens as people produce the goods and services they or others want more efficiently or with more resources.

Can growth go on indefinitely? Basically yes. Nowadays a lot of things of value are just information (think about a computer game). We can produce a lot of information. Also, even if there were hard limits to what you could produce, you can have infinite growth by asymptotically getting closer to what is the theoretical maximum without hitting it, although growth will be slower and slower.

Deflation can usually be reversed by low enough interest rates though.

I don't know about the New York banks. If as you say they were highly leveraged, possibility.

As far as I know that's what turned an otherwise recession into a deep and lasting depression. What I'm saying is that with lower interest rates, all other things being equal, you would have likely not had a depression.

Do people even know what caused the depression? Reading the comments it seems like nobody really knows. It was a governmental mistake. The new FED kept interest rates too high.

So what's next? Gaming PCs? If you want to reduce emissions you just tax carbon emissions and let the market adjust. What if I prefer a 8K TV but I don't own some other energy intensive hardware? I think the EU is becoming a joke.

Isn't it a contradiction to say "we could be in a post scarcity society if we wanted less"?

Btw a lot of wars in modern history were/are also ideologically motivated. War is so destructive today that it's never benefitting either side.