>>13416857>how inevitable it is to give up the imperfect attributes, that define a speciesDepends on the nature of reality. Assuming total materialism it should be possible to discover and implement the "perfect" (or damn near close to it) way to run a civilization and organize your life, making all individuals homogenized following the perfection program. Maybe however close to perfect you can get isn't close enough and your civilization is still unstable and changes over time with individual rebellion against the system in small and large ways, but under these assumptions I bet you could at least make these shifts and changes happen way more slowly than they do in our societies.
Though a critique to this is that the "perfect" system is being pursued by individuals who are themselves not perfect and driven by their own desires, good and bad. Could such a system ever produce true perfection (or even the closest theoretically attainable state to perfection)? This is still true if being pursued by AI.
It could be that reality is fundamentally less orderly and rational than we think it is (or else the influence of empiricism on society stops growing and maybe declines compared to today), in which case I'd expect all civilizations (human or otherwise) to wildly diverge and seem insane to one another. As the available pool of knowledge and culture continues to grow even individuals will diverge (this is actually happening to a degree now with the internet and vast reservoirs of culture and information available to all), eventually there may be nothing like a "civilization" just a bunch of eccentric/insane people who live near each other and exchange resources, sounds like an ancap utopia kek. Even if individual cultures remain coherent, I still hold that distinct cultures would become more different, not less, to each other over time and space.
This is all kind of assuming some form of materialism, I think the second one is more likely than the first.
