I half agree with your assessments.

#1: Agreed, depending on who you ask Status Quo is quite dystopian. Now, on the other hand, if we were able to get everyone in the world with a quality of life equal to what you and I have but keep it sustainable and not wholly destroy the ecosystem or civilization, that would be a good place to be, I think. But neutering our advancement makes me very sad, and I'd like our species to live to a fuller potential.

#2: Yes, it seems solid and enviable, although as a city person I'd like to see a balance between organic and inorganic spaces (I can't really say natural vs. man-made because in the explanations posited in the article, it would all be man-made and supported).

#3: Hit or miss. If we can make truly friendly AI then it might actually be a wonderful situation. Friendly means not merely "not hurting us" but also, I'd say, it must also respect us and our freedoms. Part of that is our duty to respect the AI, as well. A mutually beneficial existence with a benevolent and powerful AI could bring incredible peace allowing for the expansion of human intelligence and creativity.

#4: Consider the long game on this one- someday, you and I both know that it is inevitable the Earth will be consumed by our dying Sun. It may not be for billions of years, but the only way to ensure the everlasting prosperity - nay, survival - of humans is to leave the Earth. It doesn't even need to be the sun - what if the Earth is hit by a giant asteroid, like what killed the dinosaurs? There are so many ways the earth could end that aren't anthropogenic (ignoring the even greater number of ways which are) that it'd be foolhardy of us not to have a contingency. 4 is, in my opinion, the only possibility on this list we must realize.

#5: Could you explain why you find it awful? I find it philosophically neutral, but I do find myself fascinated by the idea of all humanity coming together to share in one giant mind. Imagine every person as a neuron in a single brain, all working together for something greater than any one of us. This could go both ways, I don't find it inherently bad.

#6: Perhaps consider that that point of view (no pleasure without pain) is an adaptation to our environment. We've been forced to suffer a great deal as a species, and therefore to cope with it, we've had to learn to deal with pain by considering it a vital part of our experience. If we were in a situation where there was no pain, and no suffering, then there would be no need for such an adaptation.

#7: The idea presented in the article is really more of a catch-all but there are certainly elements of their thoughts that are Buddhist sounding. As such I really have no particular statements on it - it's too broad. Curious but too airy.