Eventually, society revolts, and 'the rich' end up owning a place for their head in a basket.

Exactly, as long as we keep deriving most productivity gains from capital rather than labor, then rising inequality is inevitable without some kind of intervention.

In other words, this system relies on constant growth. We're hitting the first limit to that growth, CO2.

I wonder what happens to society in a theoretical scenario where the foundation of why we build societies change. I understand this is way over simplifying it, but one of the basic premises of building a society is to control a finite resource. [We are going to control this water, this farmable land, oil field, etc.] I wonder what would happen to society if we were able to make more and more of the universe useable, if 3d printing became so efficient we were able to make our own goods, or other scenarios that would make it so we no longer needed to rely on a society in a classic sense to accumulate a "limited" resource. Would it fundamentally change how we govern ourselves or would we just change what metrics we use to define the rich/not rich?

The speed of light puts pretty hard limits on the amount of things you can meaningfully own.