Until you consider the economic (and political) cost of feeding the now unemployed human. Who, to the degree he’s only suited for robotiz-able work, will not be unemployed, but rather unemployable.
You may well be right that we’re on the cusp of an exponentially increasing capability. But it can only be put to use at a rate that’s politically palatable to the populace and that’s not too disruptive to the owning class’s current investments.
World events from the 1980 Iranian revolution to Trump’s election with umpteen other examples in between are all direct consequences of an attempt by one elite or another to implement wide-ranging changes faster than the populace at large and the vested interests hidden therein were willing to accept.
These kinds of societal responses are horrendously inefficient. As well as destructive. But they’re as predictable as the weather. A thesis that assumes them away is simply a thesis about spherical cows.
This is true. And, like spherical cows, I’m neglecting this totally because I just don’t know what human societies will do. (just like you can model a spherical cow on paper by just looking up the coefficient of drag from a book, while you need a powerful computer to model air flow over a complex body like a cow)
Not at all. Una, like Qadgap is a professional and an expert in their fields. If a bunch of amateurs in the field of medicine were debating about medicine with someone who’s OP was at easily addressed by them and just came in to agree, it would be the same thing, and I’d expect that, especially in an IMHO thread. I think your OP has already been adequately addressed by multiple posts in this thread, and I doubt it’s worth Una’s time to go into the additional detail that might be warranted if this were in GQ or GD and the OP was more fleshed out and had more meat.
To summarize, you asked if what you are proposing it’s ‘feasible’. In a nut shell, it isn’t for all the reasons already given. Speculating on future tech is interesting, and thinking about what the issues might be if we get some of it is an interesting debate in itself, IMHO (we have addressed this in GD in several threads I can think of), but it’s not a magic wand that will make your OP ‘feasible’, since if we assume magic tech then we probably would use it for a mix of energy production (or, hell, just use our magic nano-scrubbers to just take the CO2 and other GhGs out of the atmosphere). You could leverage the types of production methods you are talking about to do a bunch of things, and none of them would mean we’d go to 100% solar, regardless.