Understanding that you're a "newbie to economics" I'd like to point out that the concept of the production-possibility frontier is misapplied here. The PPF deals with economic efficiency (whether an economy is producing at its potential) and relative allocations of production of capital goods vs. consumer goods. An economy is said to be producing at the edge of its PPF if there is 100% efficiency (full employment). An economy producing at a point under its PPF is associated with inefficiency (unemployment). The way you use the term does not make sense.
Secondly, economics is concerned with the efficient allocation of scarce resources among unlimited wants.
Human want is insatiable, and that's a pretty fair assumption. Even in some hyper-futuristic world, someone out there is going to want their own planet or some other kind of luxury status good. Even if everyone gets their own planet, you still have the dilemma of the fact that having a planet won't be a luxury good anymore (and something else might). This is one of the fundamental assumptions of economics.
Whether or not natural resources are scarce depends on whether you want to factor in resources in the Solar System / universe. Even in that scenario, it's a question of time scale:
The problem is that I believe we are likely to achieve levels of automation where 99.99% of human jobs are eliminated before we can utilize natural resources beyond our Solar System, and before we can achieve a point where humans are so satisfied they desire nothing more (excepting the occasional planet or two).
For the PPF, I meant to say that the job for humans may be to figure new ways of doing things that can make the economy more efficient. Unless singularity is achieved, I presume machines can only do what humans have designed/told them to do. So machines would be limited to following known methods of making things where humans may ultimately be out of jobs.
It's easy enough to imagine some sort of economics-like practice that manages to aim for equitable allocation of abundant resources among impractical wants.
Secondly, economics is concerned with the efficient allocation of scarce resources among unlimited wants.
Human want is insatiable, and that's a pretty fair assumption. Even in some hyper-futuristic world, someone out there is going to want their own planet or some other kind of luxury status good. Even if everyone gets their own planet, you still have the dilemma of the fact that having a planet won't be a luxury good anymore (and something else might). This is one of the fundamental assumptions of economics.
Whether or not natural resources are scarce depends on whether you want to factor in resources in the Solar System / universe. Even in that scenario, it's a question of time scale:
The problem is that I believe we are likely to achieve levels of automation where 99.99% of human jobs are eliminated before we can utilize natural resources beyond our Solar System, and before we can achieve a point where humans are so satisfied they desire nothing more (excepting the occasional planet or two).