Disclaimer: If I'm wrong about something, I appreciate corrections, but please don't be an asshole about them. I know myself not to understand economics very well.

When something is as ubiquitous, as pervasive, as well-supported, as institutionally-backed as capitalism, you have to make significantly better arguments against its use than the mere fact that it has some obvious inefficiencies in some branch of it. Capitalism can wreak ruin among large swathes of the world, for all people care about. That still wouldn't stop them for doing their damnedest to preserve the system.

As someone who's been working for a while at coming up with economically sane alternatives to capitalism, I'll do my best to share my understanding of why, as it were, "it's complicated".

One, capitalism is what emerges when an economy can make proper use of currency, and the state allows people to trade without monopolizing all economic activity within its territory. Wherever it is found, money obeys certain laws and trends, which have been codified into a fairly rigorous science called economics. In other words, you'd have to move beyond money and trade for capitalist economics not to apply. This is non-trivial. Take my word for it. I've dedicated a lot of brainpower to the matter and I have yet to find a factor as motivating as money that you can introduce into an economic system. Socialist states have attempted to run money economies on non-capitalist principles and got fucked over by economics -- the same economic laws which they rejected. It is far easier to invent capitalistic workarounds for disruptive technologies than to redesign the economic system of a country or of a planet.

Two, capitalism does not exist in a vacuum. It's not intellectually self-contained. You cannot uproot explicitly capitalistic ideas from people's minds, in ignorance of the implicit ideas they were founded on, and expect them not to grow back. This goes as deep as people's understanding of the idea of property or the necessity of trade. Take property, for instance. You can get a feeling of the fluidity of the concept by looking at the debates around intellectual property. Is piracy theft? Yes or no? In ye olde days, to steal something meant to forcefully and illegitimately transfer ownership from someone to yourself, depriving the rightful owner of his/her wealth. Piracy of digital products, however, does not deprive anyone of anything; you can make as many copies of something as your storage space allows, without anyone getting poorer; you only deprive some people (the author, the distributors) of potential wealth. With intellectual property, the concept of property gets redefined so as to allow capitalism to continue as normally. You could also take a look at the extremes of the ideological spectrum to see how they differ in their understanding of property. On the right side, you have the libertarians who say "taxation is theft". They draw the borders around the idea of property so as to include their gross income, as decided by the market forces, and view the state's claim to a share of that as illegitimate. On the left side you have those who say "(private) property is theft". They feel (not kidding here) entitled, as a class, to everything that came out of the hands of wage-workers, a.k.a. the proletariat, a.k.a. people who do not own other means of production than their own capacity for labour. When they speak of the revolution of the proletariat and the expropriation of the wealth of the bourgeoisie, they feel like they're taking back what was rightfully theirs from the start.

Or take trade. One of the most stupid... eh, I mean, frequently asked questions I get when I suggest the idea of a moneyless economy is, "but doesn't that mean going back to barter? How would you convince people to work for nothing?". It's a struggle to get people to simultaneously keep in their minds the ideas of working for nothing and of paying for nothing, and why, when taken together, they don't lead to the sort of disaster that they would if they were considered separately. With modern people, there's simply a trade-shaped hole in their minds. It's how they were raised to view an equitable acquisition of something -- as an exchange between two things of equal value.

These conceptualizations of the economic side of life are fundamental. They cannot be changed in a population within two or three generations, and they meaningfully impact the economic behaviour of people.

Three, it's quite the mistake for folks to focus so much on ordinary vanilla goods like food or water or various widgets, and to neglect the sorts of products that barely ever appear in non-capitalist economies -- the edge cases that prove the real challenges. You could be completely primitive and still not worry about the availability of food or clothing or shelter. This therefore has no important implications for capitalism. Consider instead other classes of goods or services. Benefiting from the time and skills of a good surgeon. Luxury goods. (Have you been around upper class people? It's one of those rare circles where the impact of prices over desirability deviates from ordinary intuitions -- goods get more desirable as they get expensive.) Exceedingly good service. Mercenary work. (It used to be a thing, you know.) The value of a good engineer. Basically everything that requires going that extra mile. There's no motivator quite like profit.

Four, people, and the powerful sort in particular, happen to very much like the status quo. For all the talk about eradicating poverty and income inequality, there's something that some people want, that you cannot get in a relatively egalitarian society: bargaining power. You cannot get a child who isn't starving to work in a sweatshop. You cannot have so much leverage against someone who can defend himself from your attacks. Without slaves, there are no masters. There are less cruel ways to talk about what I mean, as well: money is enmeshed in modern government, and states (whose income is overwhelmingly extractionary) demand for taxes to be paid in money. (After all, it would be inefficient for a government to demand payment in physical goods or in labour, for much the same reason as barter is inefficient.) Libertarians love to emphasize the antagonism between the government and the market, but in truth they're deeply interconnected, more so than they have opposing interests. The only category of people that do not directly have a vested interest in the preservation of capitalism comprises poor and powerless people, and even they may get used as cannon fodder if capitalism, when it eventually goes down, goes down in flames. (So they're indirectly interested in the general stability of the regime.)

Long story short, no, capitalism and the profit motive are not going anywhere, and no disruptive technology is going to change that. It doesn't matter how cheap basic goods become, or how easy everything is thanks to automation. If the maintenance of the system requires that producers tap into the endless bag of bullshit needs and jobs in order for us to still have something we call "value", then so be it. If you look at technology as some kind of way out of capitalism, ask yourself who produced the technology, and what their revenue is.