Hermes, for the Stoics virtue is the same as happiness, so there is no distinction to be made. This, of course, sounds strange, but here is one way to interpret it charitably: we are by nature social animals, and we are not happy unless we feel a productive component of a group. Virtue consists in acting as a productive component of the group. So virtue is the same as happiness, in the sense of eudaimonia, a life worth living.

Other schools interpreted things differently. For the Epicureans virtue is, as you say, instrumental to happiness, which consists not in what I described above but in ataraxia, mental tranquillity.

I’m sorry but I don’t get why Stoicism would be indistinguishable from hedonism. Could you elaborate?

I also don’t see why political utopia are destined to fail if there is no providence. Besides, who has been talking about political utopias anyway?

It also doesn’t follow that working to improve humanity is not rational. Improving humanity for the Stoics is a source of happiness, and that’s precisely because they are not hedonists.

I also do not believe that life, intelligence, and consciousness are inevitable. As far as we can tell they are just as likely of being the result of rare accidents. We just don’t know.

Moreover, there is nothing “mere” about accidents. They just are. No need to attached diminutive modifiers.

Your conclusion that there is “some kind” of logos is far from obvious, and unless you can specify what that logos consists of and how it arises it is pretty close to meaningless, scientifically speaking.

I’m sorry, I tend to have a fairly low opinion of transhumanists. I think they are largely driven by hubris and narcissism. And I don’t believe in progress as any kind of inevitable metaphysical concept. Things change. Sometimes for the better, other times not. And nothing lasts forever anyway. Cheers!