then those people who cannot be useful will not survive - it's as simple as that. It takes resources to keep someone alive, and that resource must come from somewhere.
I'd live for basic income to be viable, but i highly doubt it's viable, given that it amounts to altruism (from those people who own the means of production/automation). We'd have to have free or near-free energy.
This is the key point that always perplexes me in these discussions of automation, the belief that somehow a fully automated society is going to lead to large swaths of the population not doing work and somehow being given basic income and being left to chase 'loftier pursuits' instead of 'wage slavery'...
its not a logical expectation based on past human history...
The closest humans have ever come is the indiginous potlach societies of Papua New Guinea where scarcity wasn't an issue and people lived fairly idle lives (and substituted physical scarcity with societal scarcity).
To say those people that cannot be useful will not survive is sort of despicable and naive. Someone on the other side made a point about revolts and if we carried this view so far, I guess something like that would happen and make normal economic activity untenable.