caveat emptor: I am not a lift engineer, but I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express and I have come "this close" to being dumped out of a chair in high wind.
This is less of a future problem and more of a simple design economics problem. When you look at a graph of wind speed versus cost, as the wind speed goes up, the build cost goes up much quicker and cost of simply shutting down. Once a lift is in place, the available options to solve wind problems are dramatically reduced. As others have noted, wind concerns are often a factor in choosing a surface or subsurface lift system versus a cable based lift.
As Epic has noted, prevailing wind direction factors a lot into design. Small changes in the direction the lift is set can make an important difference, but topology and soils can override wind concerns. Where the lift tops out can make a difference. Snowbird determined that ending a lift below the summit made such a huge difference that it was cheaper to build a tunnel to get to the other side of the ridge. Why do resorts clear trees to run lifts instead of running them up already cleared trails? One reason might be that trees offer better protection from the wind. Could a well placed planting of trees reduce wind holds on problem lifts? Steamboat added bubbles on chairs to improve rider comfort, but whoa Nelly that increased susceptibility to wind problems, but closing the bubbles on the return trip helped a lot. Other chair design aspects can involve aerodynamics versus comfort trade offs (e.g. slatted back support to let wind through won't be as comfortable as a solid pad). Lift speed is also a factor. Lots of resorts can reduce lift speed in higher winds to keep it running. There are also things you can do with tower design (e.g. number of towers, height off the ground, tower arm width, pulley design, etc). But these things involve trade offs. How these trade offs play out is a big "it depends" game.
Designing to run in higher winds means spending more money. These days, lifts are often straining the bare bones budget limits and running in high winds is something that simply can't be afforded. Even if there is budget, often it's going to look a lot more cost effective and a lot less financially risky to increase capacity by spending to upgrade from a double to a quad than by spending extra to reduce wind holds. If the wind models for the resort are not accurate or if climate changes cause major weather pattern shifts at the local level, it's going to be easy to make design mistakes that will only be obvious mistakes in hindsight. Many resorts have discovered the only cost effective way to fix these mistakes is to relocate the replacement lift when it's time to retire the original mistake.
Is it possible that advances in materials science, technology or engineering design can reduce wind holds for future ski lifts? Sure. For example, low cost power (e.g. fusion) could dramatically alter the economics of the business. But, in our lifetime, these things are not likely to make a significant difference beyond what is already available today. Is it possible that a resort may have overlooked options as simple as planting trees or replacing chairs or adding an extra tower? Sure. But it's much more likely that a resort has simply decided to keep rolling the dice on wind holds and spend their money elsewhere.
You could try using a kite to get uphill.