These types of predictions remind me of the 1939 World's Fair and Fritz Lang's
Metropolis. Note how 20 years ago everyone thought there were 100,000+ genes in the human genome and every conceivable trait could be altered by easily tweaking a few genes. Then Venter trumps the Human Genome Project, we find out that there are maybe 25,000 human genes, and thus detail tweaking of minute traits is much harder involving complex protein folding interactions that
derive from the genes. Oops. All futurist predictions beyond a five year horizon should be taken with a VERY large salt lick.
Now, I've given some additional thought to actual post scarcity economics. Any economic endeavor involving small to medium scale durable or consumable goods does NOT look to be in good shape. As a rule of thumb, say anything up to 150 meter luxury yachts. Larger items (infrastructure, aircraft carriers, etc.) would probably have some intrinsic value, but would be the possessions of dedicated groups or polities.
My cite of Paul Romer's work was in error. He assumes most (but not all) technological innovation comes from a profit motive. An individual or firm R&D's a new technology. Design and development info on the tech (the template and archive) is openly shared, but the legal right to exploit and profit from the new innovation is held as a monopoly - patent law IOW. But with post scarcity manufacturing the urge to cheat is intense, and enforcing the patent's temporary or perpetual monopoly right over the physical item derived from the template is near impossible. Even if the First & Second Worlds were to enforce patent law like the US does its current war on drugs, the Third World would jump patents on all consumer goods, medicines, etc. like there was no tomorrow. Within a few decades the effort to keep patent rights going collapses of its own weight, much like the movie & music wars on P2P downloaders are collapsing.
So the templates are easily and rapidly dispersed to a wide audience, and no one can derive a realistic profit from the sale of the physical durable goods derived from those templates. How do you adapt?
The music & movie industries can adapt as I outlined previously. They substitute one type of human capital (access to concerts, back stage passes) for the older human capital (work on creating movies & songs), and then use those music & songs as loss leaders for the new profit engine. But fabbers of increasing capability make it pointless to substitute one form of durable good for another; all durable goods (including the most advanced electronic components) are now economic fungibles. Could the physical goods be used as loss leaders for some sort of social or human capital reward, as used by the (redefined) IP industry? Perhaps, but that would seem to undermine the motive to develop new science & technologies. There are easier ways to access a profit = popularity economy than 10+ years of esoteric education.
Bottom line, I think post scarcity manufacturing has a real possibility of radically SLOWING the rate of innovation once its achieved. It will nuke the profit motive for new advancements in physical technological durables - bluetooth, iPod, etc. We will still see dedicated academics and interested amateurs like the Royal Society of the 17th-19th centuries, or the Open Source movement of today, but the drive to newer and newer technologies is swamped as the only remaining profit sector is interpersonal.
That is one difference.