Back to living under the flight path, as I do very near a small regional airport with maybe 20 flights a day. The jets do leave a greasy soot on my trees, and we don't get a lot of rain (except this year) so it builds up over time. Fortunately I live on the landing side, so quieter and presumably cleaner.

I don't have much hope the soot will go away. The jets over my house are A320's and 737's, plus a few puddle-jumpers. I can't see them being electrified, and future bio-fuel is probably just as sooty.

Well presumably there would still be market-like conditions and individual segments/companies/individuals would go through boom and bust. But you are right, I think, to ask how the whole ecology could be prevented from self-destructing. A look at the actual ideas is in order.

I don't know how to get to the five year old level on this... sorry

Classical economics expects growth, forever. Many scientists have complained that this is absurd, and untested, and unprovable, given the laws of thermodynamics and a finite planet. Indeed any observer can see today that our population requirements are bumping up against resource limits and global warming.

Ancient empires grew until they exhausted local resources and then collapsed (OK its much more complicated than that, but still they did).

There is a small minority of economists who examine no-growth and slow-growth, but I don't think they are much heard. I would say they look to something like ecological balance as a sustainable model. The advantages of growth are obvious, but the opposite in a growth-based economy, recession/depression/deflation, are disastrous. Ironically no-growth might make it impossible to get to climate resilience and survival.

Those of you in the US- imported olive oils are usually not made from olives, or have filler ingredients. California olive oils, by law, are 100% CA olives. They may not taste as good as real European oils, IDK.

Some counters to your futurism:

• I am old, like really old, so I heard this in the 1980's. That has led to some skepticism.
• I have said things like this to friends in the 2010's. oops.
• I think you over-estimate the technical definitions of most non-service jobs. Most jobs are about meetings, paperwork, and a lot of stuff that's hard to quantify. It is not that people are such geniuses, it's that social connections are important at work. Thats one reason management is leery of remote work.
• Successful machine learning projects have well-defined answers and can be tested with automation. Exceptions- writing and graphics. Most problems do not have answers.
• Simple robots like pizza makers and french-fry bots are just getting cost-effective.
• By definition, successful publicized AI projects are cherry-picking problems well suited to machine learning. The glaring exception is self-driving: well-publicized and behind schedule.
• Writing code: again, played with so-called 4th gen code generators around the year 2000. They went nowhere ( I did get a great job though). I think defining what you want in software is best done with code itself. It can't be done with abstract, simple text statements. It is the only way to be specific enough. OTOH most software projects fail, and faulty requirements are a big part of that, so maybe hit-or-miss code generators might do as well? /s

However,

Translation, search, speech, math, Go, protein folding, graphics, text generation etc etc are triumphs of engineering and I look forward to new stuff.