The first commandment of logic: thou shalt always remember Tarksi’s Theorem. If the truth value of a proposition depended on it’s verifiability, then… We got a liar paradox and we can prove anything!

I think this is the logical equivalent of division by zero: you can get numerous paradoxes and bogus proofs this way.

The real reason why trying to reach action conclusions via model analysis in social sciences (and as an Economics student once upon a time , Economics is one of them ) is that your idea of what is possible and viable taints the model.
All models are simplified , had a model maker tried to simulate the agreements reached in the eighties within the “package deal” , agreements between all parties in a market to share and act responsibly.
Most critics would say “hey , this violates the premise that anyone would do what is best for him !!! “.
People are not mice (Malthus ) and en lighted self interest can (hopefully) overcome blind short sighted interest.
I want to see an economic model that accepts the following :
1. some people would rather have less material things if it achieves a more comfortable social order (I would ).
2. People value a belief for a better quality of life for their decendents (note : belief , not proof ) more then economic activities.
3. a possibility of a society valuing economic activity less then stability and happiness.

All the above would cause an issue with a straight current economic model.
This simply reminds me of a quote from Heinlein (paraphrased ):
“The question of ecology is not how many mice can live in an ecology, but what is the quality of life of these mice”.

The economic assumptions assume that when an expansion activity is possible it will be done , ever heard of self control ?