Max Castle

If survival isn't normative, normativity might as well give up now.

Probably the only point of agreement between the two of us. The difference is for CN survival is (ultimately) the sole moral criterion, but also one that doesn't encompass human survival - neither of which I agree with.

don't get me wrong, humans may survive (however improbable that might seem), although that's a contingency, and possibly a question of identity. but survival never dies.

Survival is a concept or principle. Particular beings or creatures (or groups of) can die, but to say that "survival never dies" (survival itself will survive) is not meaningful, afaics.

survival is first and foremost a reality, which then gets conceptualised. and if grasping hard limits don't provide meaning, then meaning should give up right now.

Im not sure I follow. Particular creatures (like man) can die. If man dies out then he has failed in his sole moral obligation (according to u). The fact that survival continues to exist as a concept or that other creatures survive doesnt seem relevant.

...to Man.

Man is only of particular relevance as he is at the frontier of evolution. If that frontier shifts forward into silicon based intelligence, mans relevance as a vector for meta-evolutionary purposes is diminished and his relevance is abnegated.