I would say that the OP understands that a growth economy is not the end-all be-all of human progress, and in the end may not be ideal.
Maybe it's not about imposing a way of life on other people, but realizing that the underlying philosophy of a growth economy is flawed- it's inherently true that limitless growth is impossible, so in some sense we are all just waiting until we either slide over the top of that curve naturally, or people realize that there are other dimensions to the problem than just the x and y plot of that graph.
It is hard to argue against the underlying principle of the growth economy because it is the ONLY principle that has served has so well over the past century and gotten so many people out of poverty, and increased overall wealth, distribution of wealth is still a problem though. We are unequivocally better off today in standard economic terms than we were a 100 50 or 25 years ago. Growth can be tempered and slowed but you cannot look at growth in entirety.
In Europe, Japan, Singapore you have a shrinking population and as such you need to create less wealth to support growth, whereas in China India you absolutely need exemplary growth to make those lives better off.
It's true that a growth economy is needed in third-world countries, but the curve is also steepening, so it's not as if we need another hundred years of similar progress in order for everyone to come closer to parity (that is, the curve of human progress in general)
It's quite easy to argue against the underlying principle of the growth economy, because it pre-supposes that the previous 100 years of industrialized capitalism are what's going to continue to fix the world's problems.
It also scares me that China's growth, for instance, is tied to me being able to go to walmart and get a cheap skateboard I'm never going to use and a huge LCD TV I'm going to throw away in two years. Our economic system of moving capital and wealth creation is now dependent on being convinced to want things we don't need, and shuffling around the systems of credit we created for that system. It used to be about creating value- mostly having to do with real things that fulfilled basic human needs, and now that the market's power isn't based on that, credit default swaps are what we come up with. It's a logical conclusion of a system that only has the principal of growth behind it.
Obviously our market-based capitalistic system is the only viable way to efficiently move capital around right now, but you can't blame someone for being unhappy with the underlying message that growth is the only way forward, forever. Some people would argue that we've already reached the peak of the curve in the first world.
Maybe it's not about imposing a way of life on other people, but realizing that the underlying philosophy of a growth economy is flawed- it's inherently true that limitless growth is impossible, so in some sense we are all just waiting until we either slide over the top of that curve naturally, or people realize that there are other dimensions to the problem than just the x and y plot of that graph.