Work force is shifting from mundane tasks ( which are easily automated ) to the more creative one ( in which money incentive does not fit ). Thus entire argument when we automate most of the economy there will be no progress is invalid and in fact data show us we can at least expect total opposite effect ( increase in innovation )
LOL.,
You assume that civilisation can run on creativity alone!
You extrapolate the shift from manual labour to thought labour without realizing there will always be a lot of manual work in this world that for the comming time cannot be done by robots.
You also think that innovation is the bestest goal we can have.
But there are a lot of things that have very little practical use of innovation.
Take the humble shoe-lace.
Why would anyone want to innovate this (except for a novelty value)?
Innovation is needed, but in some sectors more than others.
Innovation without a clear path to a goal is just a marketing term.
Automation in and of itself does not increase or decrease innovation.
It is a technology, like all other technologies, that is free of moral implications.
It is our *use* of automation that can modulate innovation.
So the question is much more sociological.
How will we use this technology?
What are the pro's and con's of applying this technology to parts of society?
You can't look up to the problems of the world and just shout:'Innovate!'
You will need to look at each problem separately and apply innovation when needed.
But then you will find that sometime less innovation is more efficient.
Which is an innovation by itself.