[blamestross]

The nifty feature of intelligence is that you get to examine what you value. Critical peer comments (so far) don't seem to address the "naturalistic fallacy" part, or even lean into it.

As far as I am tell, life can be maximally ambiguously defined as "entropy deferral". Nothing can stop entropy, but life crams as much organization into that lifetime as possible. I think that is kinda cool and I want to help, so I think we should make as much matter alive as possible before the universe fizzles out.

Rationalizing value judgments is always a challenge. We can argue over facts and implication of facts all we want, but the "predicate values" are arbitrary and you can't change them in others. I generally don't bother unless I have a strong idea of my audience's "predicate values". If they don't match mine, or I can't manipulate others into agreeing we share instrumental values, I am just out of luck.