There is still plenty of room to grow and improve. Africa and Asia have huge amounts of land that are nowhere as dense as the US, let alone Europe.
> we need something for those who will simply have nothing to do in order to make money...
We need to rethink how money is created and distributed. Once you do that, the need to "make money" might be lessened or replaced with different ones.
You might want to re-think that. Places where people do not live are generally like that for a reason. How much fresh water is there? Do we really want to have more places on the planet under water stress? Do we want to ship water there? Is it hot as hell there? How much of a persons income is needed to survive with modern conveniences? What is the carbon cost of living there?
>We need to rethink how money is created and distributed.
That has to happen, but will it happen? For example, after the horse was replaced by the car, did we keep millions of horses around? No, there numbers dropped significantly. If technology can truly replace huge numbers of people, the people left with the capital may think that getting rid of huge portions of the population is a valid outcome. The truly scary thing is it may actually be a valid answer.
Rethinking income/money is definitely a must, but right now we're totally dependent on it...
But why do you latch to the specific job i picked? More ecologists, more physicians, more nurses, more psychologists, more people in the creative industries. More people in the "caring" industries as a whole. Workforce shifted from labor to knowledge. It will now shift to societal work.
For instance, I might never want to become a touchy-feely creative-industry person. What is there in this planned society for me?
The trouble with this discussion is, that it starts assuming everybody must have a job. I disagree; that's the old pre-abundance view of the world. We have to get past that.
Now, population has grown three fold in the last hundred years: http://www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/1...
There are more old people alive than ever before as a percentage of the overall population (I guess there's jobs in caring for them, unless robots do that, as well), and technology is at a point where it can replace humans completely, instead of working side by side.
I always say, the Industrial Revolution = humans aided by machines (say a ratio of 1-100), the Automation Revolution = machines aided by humans (take the same ratio in reverse).
You see the problem? Population is exploding, job automation is doing the same. In a society that needs to work in order to live, that is unsustainable.
I'm all for automation, but we need something for those who will simply have nothing to do in order to make money...
The people who own and maintain the machines will be fine, those who mediate relations between humans-humans-machines, as well. What about the rest?