There's some kind of logical flaw in all of this where "growth" is circularly defined as the overcoming of friction.
In a world where one could snap their fingers and magically have everything, would "growth" be impossible?
Conversely, just throw out all your technology and live in the woods and re-implement and re-discover agrarian tools and techniques: amazing growth!
The point is that in my opinion "growth" defined in this way is not a helpful goal.
Building/creating/producing something that is more cheap/efficient/better than an existing tech should be the goal, regardless of whether or not there is friction involved in creating it.
Friction in current technology may or may not be a signal that therein lies opportunity. It's not a given.