I think the fine tuning of the universe for life is one thing whihc suggests that the universe is one thing whihc suggests the univerese is evolving to something better

It may go on forever or it may not. Either way we won't be around to see so not much point in dwelling on it :)

I think Universal Perfection could very well mean that there is no further change.
But I don't think that's going to happen for a long time (if it ever does)

Thanks for the welcome Bitter Crank.
I would define perfection as complete harmony and absence of discord. If you prefer a good that is realistically possible where people behaved reasonably well, refer to the "Minimalist version" in the post above.
Cheers

Thanks all for the great feedback. Based on it I have come up with two revised versions, a maximalist one and a minimalist one.

Maximalist Version

1. The concept of hope is an appropriate starting point for philosophy

2. Hope consists of a desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility

3. The best thing to hope for is a Universe that everyone would want most

5. The Universe that everyone would want most is Utopia

6. Hoping for Utopia entails striving for Utopia

7. Striving for Utopia provides grounds for assessing appropriate actions, beliefs and theories

8. In deciding what actions to take to realise Utopia, theoretical analysis, speculation and interpretation are essential

9. However, the objective of analysis is not to provide an indubitable foundation for knowledge or action

10. Rather, the objective of analysis is to provide a reasonable basis for actions, the efficacy of which is assessed by their effects on the progression towards Utopia

11. The point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.

Minimalist Version

1. The concept of hope is an appropriate starting point for philosophy

2. Hope consists of a desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility

3. Things can get better or they can get worse

4. It is best to hope for things to get better

5.Hoping for things to get better entails striving to make things better

6. Striving to make things better provides grounds for assessing appropriate actions, beliefs and theories

7. In deciding what actions to take to make things better, theoretical analysis, speculation and interpretation are essential

8. However, the objective of analysis is not to provide an indubitable foundation for knowledge or action

9. Rather, the objective of analysis is to provide a reasonable basis for actions, the efficacy of which is assessed by their effects on whether things get better

10. The point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.

I agree that radical biological changes would be required, but not that all species except one would need to be annihiliated. Perhaps organisms could be engineered so that they all rely on inorganic liquids as a food source.

Note that my claim that Universal Perfection is realistically possible is based on the following premises:

1. Nature (space, matter, energy and consciousness) does not have a static essence and is in a
continuous state of development.

2. Within nature there exists a universal cosmic subject.

3. The universal cosmic subject has a drive to move beyond itself to something better.

4. The universal cosmic subject influences the development of nature.

5. Due to 3 and 4, the universe is evolving towards a state of complete harmony and absence of
discord (i.e. perfection).

To justify these premises will take a lot of argument, so I suggest that for the purposes of this thread it is just assumed that Universal Perfection is realistically possible.

Another thread can be started on the justification of the above premises if there is interest.

Thanks Pseudonym, good points

The use of "should" does introduce unnecessary complications. Therefore, 3 can be amended to:

3. It is best to hope for the best thing that is realistically possible

or perhaps just

3. The best thing to hope for that is realistically possible is Universal Perfection
(in which case 4 becomes redundant).

This a moral or perhaps aesthetic claim rather than a metaphysical one.

I wouldn't deny that Buddhism has some valuable insights. In fact I like very much the work of Buddhist Reginald ray.
But I do think, in the west at least, that Buddhism is a politically conservative force. I agree with Zizek's take on Western Buddhism.

From the perspective of the philosophy of hope, Buddhism is largely a regressive force which encourages quietism and withdrawal from the world, thus impeding the achievement of Utopia.