Uncle worked down at city dump. He loved it. He was kind of a garbologist in a way. He was fascinated by all the things folks threw away. Retired there too. Got a job right out of high school and worked until he was 62 and retired. Dude has so many "trash" sculptures. That is to say, sculptures made out of trash. I think you'd be surprised the jobs folks enjoy doing.

For example i doubt that many people enjoy working at garbage disposable or basically any waste disposal

Ehhh I bet you'd be wrong. Only anecdotal obviously, but at practice and games for the kids, a lot of dads just chat when there isnt much going on. A couple of them work for the local garbage company. One of them commented that he doesnt know how I stay inside and work all day, he really enjoys being outside with the trucks in the morning, then enjoying the afternoon outside with the kids. Another one is a mechanic for them, he always thought the trucks were cool, and he still enjoys working on them (though he will 100% tell you, in great detail, which manufacturers suck for various parts). Haven't talked much with the last one about work, I think he is the only one just straight up doing it for money though.

And who knows, maybe the guy who likes being outside says that to be positive about his choices in life, but I see him at the park with the kids a lot, I've run into him heading out to the trails on his mountain bike, etc, so I believe him that he's perfectly happy doing it.

Automation for unwanted tasks is great though, I agree, and where automation should be focused.

I met a guy last week who was unusually passionate about water filtration and wanted to make a business globally. People are wonderfully weird.

You are 100% correct

Why do you assume that we'd need correctional officers in a world without money?

Don't you think there is some way we could structure society to counteract that without creating an underclass of wage slavery?

That's absolutely not what bystander effect is, not even close. It has also nothing to do with the issue at hand. Bystander effect caused not by not willing to put an effort, it's incredibly complicated, layered, and not exactly explained, but probably the only thing we know about it for sure is that it's not because people are lazy

Someone who wants to live a life of luxury and comfort in a world with wastewater treatment plants, knowing that everyone else is also pitching in and doing their part.

Someone who wants to live in a world without billionaire pedophiles in power doing nothing but hoarding all of the wealth.

Someone who cares about the wellbeing of their community and is motivated by that, rather than by selfish greed.

In other words, anyone. Everyone.

"Who's gonna do mindbraking soulcrushing jobs for days without a break?" Nobody, that's not a job that has to be done this way. "But if we stop orphan crushing machine, what will crush all the orphans?"
When you're imagining the worst parts of the worst jobs, remember that the reason those jobs have worst parts is because the main incentive of every job is to have the profit of a job as high as possible, and to exploit the workers. Yeah, some jobs are hard, some are complicated, some are dirty, some are all three. But all that is something people can and regularly enjoy. People don't enjoy when it's degrading, when it's soulcrushing for no reason, when there is obvious injustice. And it has nothing to do with jobs

I'm actually very familiar with the idea of the tragedy of the commons.

Rather than re-cover well tread ground, I hope that you don't mind if I quote from a relevant section of an Anarchist FAQ, and I encourage you to check the link I shared, as it goes into far more detail:

In reality, the "tragedy of the commons" comes about only after wealth and private property, backed by the state, starts to eat into and destroy communal life. This is well indicated by the fact that commons existed for thousands of years and only disappeared after the rise of capitalism -- and the powerful central state it requires -- had eroded communal values and traditions. Without the influence of wealth concentrations and the state, people get together and come to agreements over how to use communal resources and have been doing so for millennia. That was how the commons were successfully managed before the wealthy sought to increase their holdings and deny the poor access to land in order to make them fully dependent on the power and whims of the owning class.

[...]

In fact, communal ownership produces a strong incentive to protect such resources for people are aware that their offspring will need them and so be inclined to look after them. By having more resources available, they would be able to resist the pressures of short-termism and so resist maximising current production without regard for the future. Capitalist owners have the opposite incentive... unless they maximise short-term profits then they will not be around in the long-term (so if wood means more profits than centuries-old forests then the trees will be chopped down). By combining common ownership with decentralised and federated communal self-management, anarchism will be more than able to manage resources effectively, avoiding the pitfalls of both privatisation and nationalisation.

If you want a modern, real-world example of this which you may have actually experienced yourself, look no further than this medium we are using to communicate. The Internet is a great example. The Internet was a fantastic common space lovingly maintained and curated by individuals, with services and content provided freely. Corporations encircled it, and turned it into the torment nexus we have today. It wasn't because of us, collectively, that spoiled the commons of the Internet - it was capitalism itself.