You speak like they would have to do something 'aggressive'. If you can achieve a circular economy, where robots produce products for the benefit of a lucky few

You speak like they would have to do something 'aggressive'. If you can achieve a circular economy, where robots produce products for the benefit of a lucky few who can live off of their investments (in the robots), then the rest of the population will 'naturally' go away. You might say "but why not use just 1% of that GDP on making sure the rest of humanity lives in at least minimal comfort"? But clearly -- we already choose not to do that today. 1% of the GDP of the developed world would be more than enough to solve many horrifying problems in the developing world -- what we actually give is a far smaller fraction, and ultimately not enough.