Since we're talking, basically, economics we might as well use the proper terminology. You are making the argument that any increase in the productivity of labor leads to job losses.

Not every increase, because the market often accommodates more production; but enough increases to cause unemployment in the longer term.

If you want to base your prediction on available evidence (aka historical data), note that other than in short term, increases in the productivity of labor have not led to massive unemployment.

This is true. I believe the future is likely to be different from the past in this regard.

No, I don't think they are separate processes, I think they're much more like flip sides of the same coin. You can't create without destroying. For someone to become a scribe, he has to be not needed as a farmhand.

More precisely, his wages as a scribe must be higher than as a farmhand, to entice him to switch. It's true that labor is finite and people who start working on something new therefore stop working on something older.

In general, when thinking about jobs, you might want to think in terms of "creating value" and "(re)distributing value". A job is not a benefit -- it's a cost (in human time and effort) of producing value.

Yes, jobs are costs, and businesses are driven to minimize costs. So as technology improves, some or all humans become unemployable in more and more jobs, because value can be more cheaply created using machines.