Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

Ah, this makes it a lot more clear. I have a question for you then. Do you find it likely, in any sense, that your way of framing reality distances you from obtaining "objective truth" about the nature of life? As a philosophy your antiwork argument works very well. However, in a pragmatic sense it is the most detached conception of the world one can actually have. A philosophy born in absolute detachment from the world and it's more artistic elements. A philosophy that assumes far too much about the origin of things. In your willy wonka example, there's no way to be clear about his intentions and that's where it seems like you fall short. The arrangement of society/reality does not necessarily make the intentions behind that arrangement clear and so we have to do some serious digging here. Almost finished, I think what I'm struggling to understand from the two posts that I've seen from you is, what element of life do you apply the most value to in both your anti work argument and your Willy Wonka example?

This is a fun concept to think about in an intellectual sense, but once you get realistic about it, it becomes far less interesting. Being born is also a "forced game" in the exact same manner as work, so where does that line of thought actually take you besides moral nihilism? Our current economic position (in most of the world at this point) allows us more freedom and choice than every other time in human history.

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. — schopenhauer1

Your lack of imagination here, makes you look like the "unhappy" slave in your ending analogy.

I would say absolutely. Why wouldn't personally revealed wisdom, lets say a meditative experience, be explainable by mechanical processes of the brain? Any argument against the usefulness of personal revelation is very short sided when it comes to our current and future understanding of consciousness.

I'm not convinced that we have a real measure on the resources needed for "technological ascendancy". And even if we focus on the long term problem of resources, I'm not convinced that we need to leave the solar system to mine cosmic objects. Regardless of the actual specifics, the premises in the original post don't stand against thorough investigation in a definitive sense.

True, that's truly something but only thanks to advancements in economics and agriculture, trade and business become much more profitable than wars.
However this also resulted in larger population and population growth which can't end up good. — SpaceDweller

I have two small points here. The horrors of the last world wars have had a definitive affect on our overalls perspective of war, it is not as simple as the profitability of war. I think it's overly pessimistic to disregard this idea. Lastly, the dangers of overpopulation are a myth. It's a very outdated idea as younger working people are struggling to support growing older populations in some of the most population dense places in the world (lopsided populations). This is an interesting topic to research.

Anyway, I can agree that there are many problems that stand in the way of technological ascendancy.

I have an issue with both premises and how you support them.

"For the premise 1 to be false, non controlled counter measures on a global scale must be implemented to prevent such scenarios, which is very unlikely given the fact we have nukes but no effective countermeasures. (again thirst toward rule and security prevails, offense over defense)"

The effective counter measure to nukes is the possibility of offense (M.A.D.). It's pretty hard to call this ineffective, considering the world hasn't been destroyed by nukes since their creation. Also, consider the fact that we live in the most peaceful time in human history WITH the most powerful weapons.

There's also a problem with how you characterize human nature here. Even if you Disregard the future possibility of "ascended sensibilities", we cannot logical say that human nature is a DEFINITIVE boundary to the perfection of AI being used for the creation of a Utopia. Perhaps there is a psychological angle to this that can dig into.

"The path to technological ascendancy heavily depends on available raw resources and available energy, it's a time game, our planet earth is limited in resources, to break this limitation exploitation and colonization of space is necessary."

Let's talk about some problems with premise 2. You provide no explanation as to what the limit of exploitation on the planet Earth actually is, so I fail to see why the colonization of space is necessary to achieve technological ascendancy. The colonization of space Helps, but I cannot see why it is a necessity to the problem at the present time in human history. However, we can definitely get into the technical side of this issue.

Overall, this is a really good question and it seems possible that we can achieve technological ascendancy. I share the same fears present in both premises, but these fears don't turn me off to the idea that technological ascendancy is possible, for the reasons I listed above.