If the idea of progress is to be saved - if it can be saved - it must drop any allusion to constant expansion, and re-center around social and physical sustainability.
The old expansionist idea of "progress" is exactly how we have multi-billionaires enthusiastically sending humans to the moon while the Earth is dying.
@cocoron while I agree that we must work together to save our planet, on the longer term goal we must establish self-sustaining extraterrestrial colonies in order to survive. There are possible cosmic cataclysms we can't survive, no matter how sustainable our society is.
We still don't know neither if the Great Filter is ahead or in front of us, nor what it is.
@cocoron the world population is already expected to peak provided that we stay on the path of progress, keep increasing the portion of people who are educated, and squash child mortality rates all over the globe.
So the premise is false: progress is already on the path of sustainability. Progress gave us a 4-5X increase in food yields per unit land, already: https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture
Also, the world will only die if we don't get to work on climate change.
@jasondclinton You're assuming that rates of consumption on Earth are only growing strictly because of the increasing population, which couldn't be further from the truth. Ways of life and inequality where the rich and their industries have incredible amounts off resources to consume are the main tackles to sustainability.
The size of the human population is not the main issue re: sustainability and Malthusian ideas of overpopulation and distribution of resources only justify gross inequality.