I think it's interesting to see people's thoughts on this because they tend to be so extreme and I think you're right, I think it could really happen. Probably not in our lifetimes. But there is definitely scope for a lot more automation, and we have enough food, resources etc for everyone, even when the population tops out at around 10/11 billion like it's supposed to do, so there's really no reason that we couldn't distribute it except that we're all stuck in the ways things have always worked forever.
My main concern is that we are highly likely to go through a very hard period of transition in between, because to get to a point where everyone's needs are provided for is quite far down the path. Whereas the current situation, where we essentially trade labour for resources in a very unequal manner, is likely to continue probably until that point comes about, but inequality will probably get more and more extreme before that point, because there isn't anything to stop that from happening, and human nature is to protect yourself and your own family/people/etc. So no rich person is going to give up their own security to ensure the security of other people that they don't care about, until something, probably a combination of politics and technology, ensures that for everybody, by which time many many millions of people will have suffered and died because they did not have adequate access to basic resources.
Also, I think it's quite likely that the suffering and deaths etc will be very unequally distributed, and at first will affect mostly groups/populations that people in rich countries have very little sympathy for, then people within rich countries that richer people have little sympathy for. It will only be when it creeps up and starts to seriously and gravely affect those who currently have privilege that people in general will take note and be likely to activate towards a solution for.
And this is all if we don't die from nuclear war or whatever other disaster first.
Has anyone else heard of game A and game B thinking? I've been reading about this since listening to a podcast about it the other day. The basic idea is that most of human endeavour has always been based on playing game A which is the idea that everything is essentially zero sum. Someone wins, someone else loses, and that being inevitable and the only possible way of anything, and the only "fair" way is either trying to ensure that people get equal chance to win and lose, or win and lose equally, or yes ok I win, but let's try to minimise the amount that you lose. Game B is more about finding solutions which benefit everyone, and the belief that this is possible, although not everyone agrees about what exactly it means or looks like. Under this theory communism is a Game A mode of being, because it's still under that win/lose framework (lose freedom in exchange for gaining security of resources).
I don't think people will just sit around doing nothing if you give them the resources that they need. But it's hard for us to imagine this because it's like the only way we could think about this is if it happened suddenly overnight. If someone suddenly came to you and said they will continue to pay you your salary from tomorrow but you never have to work again, you probably would say oh yeah great, relaxation, but it's quite unlikely to be a sudden overnight change like that.