Why the assumption that both are mutually exclusive?

Both are important! Any individual case should be considered separately.

Here, there, and almost everywhere, Homo sapiens has been impacting the natural environment for centuries. We can only dream of a Garden of Eden. So, what natural environment are we talking about? Which one would we want to go back to if we could? What kind of degrowth might we want? What trade-offs might we accept?

Data World Sustainable Development Timeline

Data ADB Sustainable Development Timeline

Consumtpion is never more important than harmony (the opposite of consumptopion) the last 5-7k years mankind directed mostly to consumption and today we can seee the consequences all over the world. Therefore we should not further feed the way of "economic growth" but more the idea of harmony with the Environment.

Caring equally both sectors results in the balanced growth. Otherwise, rising to the pinnacle of economic development, we will unfortunately leave behind an uninhabitable land for our next generation.

Dear Kaushik, it is important to point out that economic growth (for developing countries in particular) in the long run is closely related to the sustainable use of natural capital (natural resources, natural wealth). The depletion of natural resources (the depreciation of natural capital) threatens the development potential of a country. This is more relevant for developing economies since natural capital accounts for a significant part of their total wealth. Economic growth is the foundation of development, as far as the environment is protected toward the achievement of sustainable development in the long run. Please take a look at this report for discussion ( https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/01/30/the-changing-wealth-of-nations). Best.

Environmental and economic growth must be go hand-in-hand

No Because Climate change will turn fields into desert and flood coastal areas where hundreds of millions live.

During economic growth, it is necessary to take into account the "growth" of nature, because when nature grows everyone gets, when GDP grows only some.

It's like a trade off between these two things.

Protecting the environment is more important than the economic growth of developing countries because the economic growth of industrial nations has negatively impacted the environment to the point where the quality of life has been declining globally, both ecologically and in terms of health. Fossil fuel usage by industrialized countries worsens natural global warming caused by our middle-aged sun as it slowly but surely prepares to become a red giant. Reversal of climate change has begun but if agricultural nations follow industrialized nations as a model, peoples who enjoy the benefits of being non-industrialized will see their freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness taken away from them. Therefore, developing countries need to modernize conservatively and set a better example for the world to see by investing in environmentally friendly business projects.

The answer to this question may be complicated. The trade off between economic growth and sustained environment is influenced by sets of variables. For many LDCs, the problems of poverty, economic inequality, malnutrition, illiteracy, ... , can only be solved through pro poor growth strategies. They think the cost of maintaining the environment should be born mostly by the DCs that caused Most of the deterioration in the first place. Advanced technology may play the major part of the solution, but not the economic growth of the Least Developed Countries.

The economic growth of any country cannot be more important than preserving the environment, because in the long run this will inevitably lead to the depletion of economic resources and the destruction of the country in all respects, especially with regard to human life.