> exclusive limited resources like land
I think you almost hit something more important there. Desires like mating, respect, status etc can only exists with the entities that needs it, but what if the existence of those entities is fundamentally no longer needed? Why then should "the society" maintain it? It's known that a society less burden advances faster, and it's also known that countries need to move fast to stay competitive.
I believe future is much grimmer for people currently living, because if productivity can increase without the import of human labors, then eventually the humans will simply not be kept alive. Meaning, shrink in human population, and even more intense competition for fewer still competitiable resources etc. Of course you'll are not hanging out, you're too busy doing hard labor the robots still can't yet do.
All of this is easy to see if you understand that human societies are not built to advance and provide, instead they are fundamentally built to fairly distribute resources from ones who's non-productive, to ones are. And most type of societies that is alive and well today is very good at that.
Also, off-topic here: most people confused the word "productivity" with something like "hard work", it's not that. I'll give you the readers some examples: Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't (so far) no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you; Jeff Bezos (so far) deliver goods to millions of people or more each year, but you can't no matter how hard you try, and thus Jeff Bezos is more productive than you. That's what "productivity" actually mean, not "I work my ass off everyday so I deserve to get paid more". And that's the real reason why these guys are rich and you're not, not because rich people are evil, but because they found their way to be productive and thus they get rich.
I think you almost hit something more important there. Desires like mating, respect, status etc can only exists with the entities that needs it, but what if the existence of those entities is fundamentally no longer needed? Why then should "the society" maintain it? It's known that a society less burden advances faster, and it's also known that countries need to move fast to stay competitive.
I believe future is much grimmer for people currently living, because if productivity can increase without the import of human labors, then eventually the humans will simply not be kept alive. Meaning, shrink in human population, and even more intense competition for fewer still competitiable resources etc. Of course you'll are not hanging out, you're too busy doing hard labor the robots still can't yet do.
All of this is easy to see if you understand that human societies are not built to advance and provide, instead they are fundamentally built to fairly distribute resources from ones who's non-productive, to ones are. And most type of societies that is alive and well today is very good at that.
Also, off-topic here: most people confused the word "productivity" with something like "hard work", it's not that. I'll give you the readers some examples: Elon Musk can build and launch rockets that carries actual people to space safely, but you can't (so far) no matter how hard you work, and thus Elon Musk is more productive than you; Jeff Bezos (so far) deliver goods to millions of people or more each year, but you can't no matter how hard you try, and thus Jeff Bezos is more productive than you. That's what "productivity" actually mean, not "I work my ass off everyday so I deserve to get paid more". And that's the real reason why these guys are rich and you're not, not because rich people are evil, but because they found their way to be productive and thus they get rich.