All those who are alive deserve to live because no human deserves to feel the anguish of starvation and dehydration to the point of death. Whether the burden of ensuring they don't feel that anguish is 20% of my paycheck or not. I can go without 20% of my paycheck, I can. They can't go without food and water. My burden is an annoyance, a financial injustice at worst. Their burden is an existential one.

I am not responsible for the circumstances of my birth. Are you trying to say that I am? How can I be responsible for my birth if I wasn't a thing until my birth? Obviously, my parents were responsible for the circumstances of my birth, they are the ones who created me.

I'm an antinatalist so keep that in mind when reading my comments. All human suffering is bad and should be avoided, and the ultimate way to avoid all human suffering is for there not to be a human to suffer. Of course, killing humans is inflicting unimaginable suffering, so the resolution is to not reproduce.

The difference between your hope and the hope I'm talking about is that one is possible and workable. Not just practically speaking but realistically speaking. Everyone could do nothing and not work, the only obstacle is developing automatons and AI powerful enough to completely replace the human workforce. It would be pointless, at this point, to distinguish between an "owner" of the machines and a consumer, because the owner won't profit, because the things the machines make will be in such abundance that costs will be nothing, not to mention the fact that everyone would be out of a job meaning they wouldn't have any income with which to buy anything.