This has never been true, but we've been raised and indoctrinated to believe that GDP, stock market and unemployment are valid metrics to gauge a population's actual well-being.

You think it would be better to have a decreasing GDP, a falling stock market (remember what happens when the market falls too hard? do you think people enjoyed their lives in 1929 or 2008?) and a high unemployment? this is a simple question so just answer yes or no.

The future vision of all science- and technology conventions back in the 1950s and 1960s was one in which the human race was set free by scientific and technological progress

Being free doesn't mean people don't have to be productive themselves, it means they have more options which is exactly the case.

Progress should mean that less work is necessary to do everything that's necessary to maintain a certain level of well-being. Not wealth, but well-being.

People have better lives today than in the past thanks to technology, The level of well being changes for the best as time goes on and to keep up with it they people need to stay productive. If a person wanted to live as someone from 100 years ago this person wouldn't need to work too much...

I hope you can see how an economy that wants to double its size in just 35 years, quadruple in 70 years, and so on, can never lead to any kind of stability

have in mind that better technology and a higher population will naturally result in more productive and a bigger economy. It is normal to have the economies growing when tech constantly gets better and the population is increasing.

Would you prefer to have the economy getting smaller?