Basically the difference is how we see humanity.
Possibly. I just don't think this has been established in any rational way.
For me your rational arguement for Humanity is the same as your arguement for a post-scarcity society, extremely hypothetical.
My argument for humanity is merely this: Either we die out eventually through our own collective stupidity, or we work for a better future, and MAYBE evolve towards a more stable state for our species. And by extension that WOULD imply a natural progression towards a post-scarcity society. But again; We might die off before it happens.
It's not AS hypothetical as you seem to reduce it to. It's not possible with our current level of technology and societal evolution. Post-scarcity can be reduced to this: It is simply more efficient. And there is no practical reason not to strive for maximum efficiency in all things: It is human nature to want to make things easier for oneself, and potentially those around you.
MY actual opinion about it is this: We are probably too stupid and will kill ourselves before any noticeable improvement.
I doubt we could ever come to an agreement.
Fair enough. I think that's just selling both of us short. Make me a rational argument that is convincing and it has ALL the prerequisites for me to potentially agree with it.
And i expected the same from you.