Luke, I sympathize with wanting to motivate people that change is possible, but i feel that in your essay you are not promoting the need of a specific change, but change for the sake of change.
In the list of your analogies you discuss how recently humans have become strong enough to render itself extinct.
The human species was always too weak to render itself extinct. Until we discovered the nuclear chain reaction and manufactured thousands of atomic bombs.
To me this is a strong case for why if anything we should show some restraint in the chains we tug on. There is no logic behind the idea that a higher acceleration of change (“progress”) would be in anyway beneficial to human survival. In fact, given the fact that evolutionary fitness deals with adapting to a specific environment, forcibly implementing exponentially potent change seems idiotic. Your ending sentence “just get up and walk away to a place you’ve never seen before” is very poetic, but it over romanticizes aimless wandering and is not realistic at all. Species leave an environment as an act of desperation when they cannot survive where they are. I realize that among Western elites aimless traveling is quite popular, but such behavior is a byproduct of an external environment of extreme privilege. For the majority of humans and the majority of species on our planet the luxury of being powerful enough to transplant yourself into “a place you have never seen before” simply does not exist.
Ok but these are the radical minority, and an outdated radical minority at that. Feminism at its core is adopting a dialectic of gender/sex and becoming more aware of the power structures in both these social constructions. Feminists, at least any you would work under in a legitimate research program today, would never support ridiculous claims about getting rid of 90% of men or weaponizing lesbianism to combat patriarchy. Quite frankly these ideas are somewhat offensive to the field of feminism both as a humanistic pursuit and a branch of academia.