Progress Supersedes Human Preservation

At the beginning of Round 4 Pro stated, “... the debate clearly requires that in this theoretical dilemma, there is objective progress that is only attainable by disvaluing human life in the favor of that progress.” That “theoretical dilemma” has already happened in some social systems that claim similar objectives relative to Pro. That is, in Pro's “theoretical dilemma, there is objective progress that is only attainable by disvaluing human life in the favor of that progress.” For example, yesterday those systems were the USSR, the Third Reich, systems that thought little about preserving human life for the progress of the collective or for the progress of global domination. The result, humanity fought back because it went against their Unalienable Rights. At the close of Round 4 Pro stated the following:“The burden of proof lies on Con to show that accepting a forfeiture of progress in the interest of preserving the human race is justifiable. To say that humans have rights does not show that these rights are more valuable than progress. Which takes me back to my original question- what about human life is so intrinsically valuable that it warrants a rejecting of progress?”Without those Unalienable Rights (the Right to “Life...”) then there is death. Therefore, these Rights are more valuable than progress. Human life is intrinsically valuable! Why would humanity value any progress over the “preservation” of humanity? Progress adds value, wealth, improve standard of living, etc. If “Progress Supersedes Human Preservation,” then it is not progress relative to humanity, that statement is oxymoronic. Within the bio-program of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback.” Progress embraces life's bio-program (Unalienable Rights), where anything that “Supersedes Human Preservation” diminishes those Rights. Wars were fought, over freedom, preserving those Unalienable Rights.Humans often reject progress when it violates their comfort zone; yet that progress does not “supersede” them. Even if Con could divorce himself from the human race, cannot come up with a reasonable scenario justifying progress over preserving the human species. I guess that is the human part of me. On the other hand, there are many who halt or change the direction of human progress, to preserve lower forms of species, for example, the spotted owl, etc. http://www.defenders.org... It would seem, the tendency for intelligent life, or intelligent, self-aware, sentient, cybernetics would have it the other way around--Preservation of Species Supersedes Progress. Just the thought of “Progress Supersedes Human Preservation” is a dark destructive phrase onto itself. My question to Pro, what type of “Progress,” relative to what reference point, for it to be deemed as progress at the expense of human preservation? I should remind Pro, the burden of proof is not on Con. Again, Pro's burden of proof has yet to materialize. That is, demonstrate any “theoretical” system where Progress Supersedes Human Preservation, is a requirement for its evolution. If such requirement, implies humans are a threat to that system, I would be on the side of the humans Progress Supersedes that “theoretical” system's Preservation in an all-out science fiction war to preserve us humans. Is this the direction where Pro wants to take the debate?