If you ask me, the OP hasn't learned anything. He used the phrase "need-free future" which pretty much put him somewhere on the intelligence scale between below average and creationist.
You see, I used a little benefit of doubt there. This caused me to assume that perhaps I'm not the only person here who's not a moron. Thus, his words read, to me, like he was talking about a viable future free of human-caused disasters. It didn't occur to me to think he was proposing humans would stop needing oxygen in the future or anything as silly as that, since he plainly made no such claim. In fact I question the security of someone who has to go to such lengths just to make him seem wrong and themselves seem right.
"Need-free" doesn't mean you never have needs, it means those needs are being met. When we say people around the world are starving, it is understood that they have no access to food (poverty, famine, local warlords, etc). It would be asinine to think "heh those dumbasses, why don't they open their fridge?" That's what you are doing here.
You're really coming across as either insecure or smug on this one.