Busting your ass and forming a company with a larger growth potential is still an option. It makes things riskier, but some people are fine with that.
The point of this really should have been that you need to be cognizant of the type company you are creating, realistic about its chances for success and aware that VC funding is only a means to an end.
Implicit in your comment is that a company without VC funding cannot grow as fast as a company with VC funding.
That was true ten years ago when a lot of costs were unavoidable: Server hardware ,server software, and you had to build a lot of software infrastructure from scratch.
Now all that is cheap, or free, and what isn't comes with lease terms.
Thus, lacking a big pile of money is not an inhibitor to growing big fast.
I'm not sure how you can claim that VC funding is not a means to an end. There are clearly cases in which a lot of cash helps. Startups use money for many more things than servers.
If you're pursuing cash for equity for no reason and do not really need it, then yes of course that's a bad idea. If you're preemptively avoiding cash for equity without considering if it can help you get where you want to go, however, that's also a bad idea.
So, for your basic consumer oriented web startup, you don't need VC funding...