There seems to be an unspoken "for the rich" after lots of your statements here "making society worse off... for the rich". As another commenter mentioned, there is a similar error with regard to masonry of buildings. I would urge you to consider that for a majority of history, a majority of people could never afford any of these things that you are concerned with going extinct. These things are luxuries.
I mean, I don't really disagree with you. For sure, most all services have in the history of society been mostly, if not entirely, consumed by the rich. For most of society, most everyone has been poor. If you could afford fancy stonework on your house, if you could afford someone to make your bed, of course you were rich.
The past century has seen an explosion of wealth in the world, with many people coming out of extreme poverty, emergence of large middle class in the US, etc. So, the world has gotten a lot richer. But, what does it mean to be richer?
Some things seem relatively obvious -- people have bigger houses. They get to have things like fridges and vacuums. These are tangible goods, for which the cost has fallen in line with increasing specialization and automation.
I'm saying that I think it's interesting that while a richer world can purchase more goods, it can't necessarily purchase more services, since the cost of labor rises in a richer world. Basically, productivity has to increase for people to be able to purchase the services with the rising cost of labor.
I'm not really concerned with the things I mentioned going extinct -- it's not a huge deal if we don't have stonework on buildings in NYC, and indeed if we can build housing faster than before by way of automation, that's great. But many people have wondered "why can't we build beautiful buildings in NYC like they used to?" and I'm basically saying, I think rising cost of labor is the reason, and it's interesting that this goes hand in hand with becoming a richer society.
