What you’re describing is just a variant of Malthusianism [https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/], which may not be wrong - but has not proven right either (in modern times) with advances in technology.
Especially improvements in energy generation, fertilizer production, and efficient usage of both (often through information technology).
Given any stable state of technology/energy/space, a society will generally reach a high point, then go through cycles of growth/retraction.
But improvements in technology and energy generation means it won’t be at a stable state, eh?
At a certain point, you exceed the ability of the earth to reject heat and the planet becomes venus, though that would take a few more centuries of exponential growth.
It isn't crazy to think that there are physical limits to things.
Malthus projected that populations would grow exponentially, but agricultural yields would grow linearly. He was wrong in that ag yields did keep up and population growth slowed down. One thing to keep in mind is we used fossil fuels and fertile lands to do that, but we are hitting the limits for fossil fuels and we are burning through arable land.
However, there are other physical limits, and some of these are a bit harder to work around. Infinite growth isn't necessary, but a decent life and an equitable distribution of wealth is.
Human populations cannot expand indefinitely. Indeed many are predicting population to peak latter in century and then decline. Many first world countries are in a demographic decline if not outright collapse. See most of east Asia and Europe.
Without expansion of population, consumption and production both stagnate. See what has happened in Japan in since the 90s.
There are still finite people willing to buy whatever the intermediate or end product of that fancy sand is. And finite energy and space. And only 5 billion years until the sun goes red giant.
The limits may be very large, but they aren’t infinite.
