Only of you count inflation as economic growth.

there are two kinds of growth, extensive and intensive. the first one is using more natural resources, expanding to mine the ocean and the moon, and so on.

the second one is where the intensity of the economic activity increases, so with the same input there are more outputs. technological change helps to reduce waste, increase efficiency. investing in infrastructure and other capital goods allows for increased productivity.

one big thing is simply investing in people to be more productive, eg. increasing "human capital".

of course eventually sustainable growth has to approach some asymptote, and eventually physical limits kick in. (free energy in the universe gets used up.) however our growth trajectory is very mild compared to those limits, so in practice we can continue increasing both the intensive and expansive growth asymptotically.

and even on Earth we are more limited by our own politics, culture and technology (logistics, organization, management, education included) than by physics.

and if we assume we practically can't run out of new ideas/technology, new ways to make the whole economy a tiny bit more efficient, then that simply translates to infinite growth. not exponential, but growth nonetheless.

of course the critique that "GDP go up" must not be viewed as an end goal is absolutely valid. however it's simply a contradiction to say that we want more basic infrastructure for everyone, but no growth at all (or degrowth), because every new brick will be accounted as capital, every new shelter provided will be accounted as GDP in the usual model. (and of course maybe there are better models that are easier to grasp for people, but ... currently this is how all economic theories account for things and think about growth, as far as I know).