Maybe. I’m not a communist (or at least not a state communist), but I share with many of them the beliefs that this current system is broken beyond repair and that the solution(s) will require more than a change of who’s on our money or the precise method we use to decide whose skulls the police should bash in. If longevity and happiness for our species, no say nothing of the rest of the biosphere, are real goals, we may need a radical restructuring.

A less exploitative, more free world might involve having fewer comforts or getting used to the idea that the things other people provide us are gifts rather than entitlements. It might mean making do with less reliable electricity because no one is compelled to risk their life 24/7 to keep the lights on. Maybe it involves smaller infrastructure so that the benefit of maintaing one’s own neighborhood grid are obvious.

I think you sort of gave short shrift to the above answer because they failed to provide you with a detailed list of incentives. They did, however answer with a pretty cogent framework for what to do with dangerous work: eliminate it or make it less dangerous. If no one’s willing to do a job, that sure sounds like voting with their labor and determing that the job edesn’t need doing to me.

Below, you talk about banking our species survival on whether someone enjoys a job without reward. Enjoy? No. Find necessarry enough to spend a portion of their limited time on this earth doing it? Sure. Humans (and every other species) have survived for the vast majority of our history without industrialization and work as it is today. A more just future might look more like our past than like our present or an imagined future in some ways. Historically, we’ve organized ourselves in wildly different manners and there’s no reason we can’t do the same in the future.