Interesting thought, generally radical new solutions start at the bottom and migrate up. As mentioned, cruise missiles and then UAVs have complete automation, is it really out of the question for GA/non-RPT aircraft to eventually be fitted with remote control as backup to the (single) pilot, and operate for quite a few years, and increasingly migrate to remote control as the main mode operation mode?
It may be proved after a (considerable) while that the remote control is safer than manned operation.
And then have the RPT manufacturers and regulators asking the question "if X number of aircraft have flown Y million unmanned hours, why not cut back RPT flight decks to a single pilot and the remote system?", followed later by "there hasn't been that many incidents when the (backup) pilot was needed, and by the way, she also caused Z number of unwarranted incidents due to interfering with the remote control, so why not get rid of her as well?".
Of course, this would be in the very long term, but I can see a path that makes some possible sense. Technical, political, legal hurdles etc are just that - hurdles. Don't think that statistics rule out the migration - just about every significant part on a modern aircraft is designed with an implied or explicit statistical failure rate.
May not be popular here, but don't imagine lack of popularity automatically rules it out.
Have you heard the one about the computer, the pilot and the dog?