I think leisure in that context refers to doing-what-you-enjoy not to not-doing-anything. Or as the old saying goes, if you do what you love you never have to work a day in your life.

majority of people simply won't be able to help with the complex problems that push human progress forward.

What do you suggest we do with them?

what does "push human progress forward" mean?

Educate them with what money? That requires redistribution of wealth because these people will not leave the workforce with the means to retrain and reeducate themselves.

How many scientist and engineers can any future workforce support? There will be a limit to how many "production" jobs there can be. By this I mean manufacturing, farming, infrastructure etc. This still leaves many creative endevours that can be produced and consumed almost without limit - but this also assumes people have expendable income.

I guarantee you that the majority of Americans are immediately on board with free education once they realize the alternative is a lifetime of welfare.

As far as how many scientists and engineers we need? Virtually infinite if you're creative enough. There are plenty of problems left to solve that we haven't even started. The best motivator for finding and solving those problems? Money.

Unlike software, in many fields, the limits to innovation isn't money to pay engineers, but money do stuff: build things, run experiments, etc.

you can educate people as much as you want, the majority aren't going to be able to become engineers and physicists.

Unless we can get to the point where we can manipulate genes to increase intelligence that's not a solution to the problem

It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me.

As the high school coach used to say: "You don't need talent to practice!"

Barring people truly born with mental disabilities, anyone can do it with the right attitude and resources. I'd be less worried about the gene pool and more worried about the unequal distribution of education spending causing pockets of the country to be financially unable to educate people.

> It sounds like your argument is that the ability to become an engineer or physicist is an in-born trait, which no amount of study and work can overcome, which sounds absurd to me.

Do you have evidence of the contrary? Of the top X% of highschool students who make it to engineering programs at my university, roughly 40% fail or switch majors. If they can't do it, how do you expect average or lower people to?

It is simply not feasible.

Education is just a temporary solution. Soon, we might have machines doing engineering/innovation for us.

That requires economical access to education opportunities, which is presently not the norm in the US.

Neither is unlimited leisure. I'm proposing the former in place of the latter.

I was with you until "lest we halt human progress in its place"

Look back on history and I bet all the things you think of as great achievements in human progress were the result of the leisure class's hobbies. Especially Math and Science!

Theres a darker reason why the majority of people won't be enjoying leisure- because the power to force people to work is actually a pleasure and a value of the ruling classes, and nearly everyone has internalized it.

Thats why you hear an outcry against welfare or basic income, but not a peep about trust funds or inheritances.

Why would basic research stop? It's mostly driven by government grants anyway.