I agree with your other critisising points but I think presumptions (2) and (3) make sense somewhat.
It's safe to assume that for any self-replicating life evolution takes place, universally. The genes (no matter on their biological implementation) are always evaluated by one fitness function only – whether they succeed in spreading around.
Life isn't optimised for surviving per se, but it is optimised for replicating.
The same in a way applies for civilisations. The ones that are bad at expanding are massively outexpanded/outnumbered by the ones that are good at expanding. Unless expanding fundamentally always leads to civilisation's downfall (but I don't see how it would?)
I suspect that any advanced species would abandon life as soon as possible. E.g. become non-biological and immortal. Then interstellar travel is trivial.
That makes sense, but machines and culture(s) still undergo evolution, unless replication and changes (mutations) are prevented. (Again, the ones that are good at spreading are more prevalent.) What do you think?
It's safe to assume that for any self-replicating life evolution takes place, universally. The genes (no matter on their biological implementation) are always evaluated by one fitness function only – whether they succeed in spreading around.
Life isn't optimised for surviving per se, but it is optimised for replicating.
The same in a way applies for civilisations. The ones that are bad at expanding are massively outexpanded/outnumbered by the ones that are good at expanding. Unless expanding fundamentally always leads to civilisation's downfall (but I don't see how it would?)