It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.
Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.
Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.
Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.
As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.
Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"
The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.
If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.
But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need.
Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take precedence over the needs of each of us. The only way to reverse the decision is -
- to collectively agree that every one of you wants something else?
Yes. There is an old economic theory predicting that the preferences of the society should eventually reflect individual preferences of its members, at least in the long run. There is still hope that this will happen in the future, but not before I will be long dead, I'm afraid.