This is very interesting, but for me the chief implication -in terms of 'economic growth'- is for framing. There are many types of 'growth' that can be articulated, the fetishism of 'economic growth' is socially constructed, embedded in market and institutions, and it is as unusual in the history of world cultures as it is dysfunctional.
If we speak about and prioritise other kinds of 'growth,' economic output can be returned to its rightful place, which is only as a means to an end.
I think this is demonstrated by the problems the terms 'degrowth' and 'steady state' encounter. They are useful for academic discussion, and to articulate ideas amongst activists. But, human psychology has been demonstrated as motivated more by losses than gains (Kahneman and Tversky).
So these terms may carry a risk of alienating people who's identity is tied up with consumerism and economic growth. This accounts for most people in wealthy nations, and many of the economic elites and middle classes in less wealthy nations.
If these new findings of Adams et al. are valid, we could now consider what can we add, rather than than subtract, and effectively de-platform economic growth as the defining motivation on this straining planet.