Besides being a fundamentally politically charged statement, I see no good argument on why not, so I'm sure you're ready to present some evidence behind that.
Where you're completely right is that fundamental exponential resource usage is not sustainable.
But in fact, OP makes a pretty convincing argument that resource usage is starting to decouple from GDP growth (in fact, exponentially so).
Adding the exponentially growing level of automation and still-dropping cost-effective renewables into the mix (as well as their synergetic effect on each other), it's a rationally following thought that energy will be almost-free in the near future.
With an exponential growth of external (solar) energy into the system, it's not far off to channel this energy into GDP to sustain the growth.
Just one example: Water problem. There's a drinking water shortage everywhere but if you look at the globe from orbit, you see the planet does not have a water shortage.
In fact, it's just an energy shortage of desalinating that water. Bring that almost-free water to the deserts around the equator and you're in fact creating resources.
I think the idea of degrowth is a fundamental error. It's only when the ecological finally gets economical when you convince the naysayers as well.