I'd like to reference the classical economist's answer: it depends. It's obvious that without leaving this planet that we're limited to the resources on it, so

I'd like to reference the classical economist's answer: it depends. It's obvious that without leaving this planet that we're limited to the resources on it, so economic growth is limited barring any massively revolutionary technology allowing us to skirt that seemingly hardcoded ceiling limit. Even including stuff like the Metaverse as economic growth, physical servers are necessary for them to operate. It's entirely possible we reach a global steady-state economy point, but that shouldn't stall lateral growth due to obsolete sectors shrinking and disappearing to make room for newer advancing sectors. Total growth wouldn't be the goal in this case. It depends on a lot of factors that are difficult to take into account, but I do agree with the underlying premise of the article: humanity needs to start figuring out how to "best" use the finite resources that we do have. But, that's an incredibly sensitive topic, I mean this is an issue that has arguably started most violent conflicts in our history. Without going down the all the potential rabbit holes this topic creates, it depends on a lot of which is uncertain. Notably, what sort of values we want to apply moving forward, which is difficult to coalesce to say the least.