Yes, yes yes! More people need to understand this, and share this understanding with others, so that we all understand it.

It reminds me of a distinction I make between goals that are inherently "meaningful", versus goals that are of strictly explanatory or "rhetorical" value.

Which I think leads to the conclusion that there can be no universal "ought", since all desire (and therefore all value creation and goal setting, and therefore all perspective on "morality" and "ethics") can only be judged from the standpoint and preferences of individuals (https://medium.com/the-panopticon-publication/morality-is-personal-and-tribal-always-20c8c31f5d29).

Therefore, the question of what society "we" "should" have is the wrong question, since it's essentially nonsensical. The right question, since it's the only sensical one, is simply: "what society best suits my own self interests?" Or perhaps more precisely: "what society expresses the game-theoretical dynamics that will most likely bring about my desired outcomes?"