> The idea is to escape that and make exploiting people not an option.

I am in, but just wanted to let you know many had this idea before. People thought in the past we would barely work these days anymore. What they got wrong is that productivity gains didn't reach the common man. It was partly lost through mass consumption, fueled by advertising, and wealth concentration. Instead, people at the bottom of the pyramid have to work harder.

> I like my ideal world a lot better.

Me too, without being consumption oriented though. Nonetheless, people that take a blind eye to the weaknesses of humankind often runs into unpleasant surprises. It requires work, lots of work.

IMO it’s impossible with the idea that survival=work. It’s evident here, with people desperately fighting against AI art because it’ll take away people’s jobs. It’s not even just that, though. It’s also the belief that AI art takes away from human art, as if AI chess existing makes Magnus vs. Niemann less exciting.

That same work=survival idea is what incentivizes competitiveness and of course, under that construct, some humans will put on their competitive goggles and exploit others.

There are a lot of human constructs that need to fade away before we can get to a fully automated world. But that’s okay. Humans aren’t the type to get stuck on a problem forever.

I agree with those points, especially competition is an important one. It has been the furnace of our progress too, so this is a double edged sword.

I think people will not stop forming a social hierarchy, and so competition remains a sticky trait I think.

> work=survival idea is what incentivizes competitiveness

True, the idea that you can do better than the Jones through hard work is alluring. Having a job is now a requirement for being worthy, the kind of job defines your social position. Compare with the days of nobility though, where those nobleman had everything but a job ("what is a weekend?").