I don't see where LeGuin's argument is anything like "we shouldn't grow past where we are now".
She's arguing (rather imprecisely, since she's not an economist) against a narrow version of uncontrolled economic growth that maximizes shareholder value and raw economic output.
And the objections she voices - growing inequality, environmental externalities, etc - are well-discussed within the field of economics itself.
And while humans _are_ generally more well-fed, sheltered, educated, etc. right now than during past times, there are very serious problems on the horizon, due to increasing population, climate change due to burning hydrocarbons, and other factors deeply entangled with human economic activity.
She's arguing (rather imprecisely, since she's not an economist) against a narrow version of uncontrolled economic growth that maximizes shareholder value and raw economic output.
And the objections she voices - growing inequality, environmental externalities, etc - are well-discussed within the field of economics itself.
And while humans _are_ generally more well-fed, sheltered, educated, etc. right now than during past times, there are very serious problems on the horizon, due to increasing population, climate change due to burning hydrocarbons, and other factors deeply entangled with human economic activity.