Perhaps this statement hints at a possible further question, more of a 'what' than a 'why'. What constitutes 'social progress'? Is it the supply of goods that you have outlined in your essay as being fundamental to the economy, or is it something else?

Never mind the 1972 'Limits to Growth', Malthus got there two centuries earlier when he pointed out that maintaining a sufficient supply of food and (by implication) other essentials in order to eliminate poverty (defined as the absence of those essentials for a significant proportion of the population) was an impossible task.

Scientists and Engineers gave us the means to solve the problem, thereby facilitating increases in population beyond Malthus's imagining. It has produced 'social progress' for some, but famine and poverty have not yet been eliminated, nor will they be, so long as the wealth created by technology stimulates increased population as a consequence.