Are most degrowth/postgrowth advocates "decoupling pessimists", in the sense that they are critical about the possibilities to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth quickly and sufficiently? So I have claimed, but to my surprise, Tim Jackson, Jason Hickel, and Giorgos Kallis (2024) denounce that they are and instead claim that "most postgrowth scholars readily accept the need for high levels of decoupling". Despite what is stated in Hickel and Kallis (2020) and how the article has been interpreted, they now further claim that there are no "definable limits to decoupling". In this reply to Jackson, Hickel and Kallis commentary, the foundation for why they were interpreted as decoupling pessimists is laid out, while their new and more optimist standpoint is welcomed. Further, my view on "the dilemma of growth" and how it differs from Jackson, Hickel and Kallis is elaborated. The difference revolves around the question of capitalism: can it be expected to stop growing, and is it likely to disappear within short? If the answer to both questions is no, strong decoupling is our best chance to avoid runaway climate change.