Everyone is mentally flawed, placed somewhere on the spectrum. But more importantly, each of us has the potential to move on this spectrum, just some towards the better end, while others the worse. I believe what pulls us are the various memes, from the "meme pool" (which is essentially what we call humanity). As with genes, we rarely come up with truly novel memes, but rather, we are mostly in the business of preserving and spreading them, while possibly introducing some mutations that can potentially challenge, and thus improve upon, the older version; most of our genes are very old, and so are the most significant and powerful of our memes. Indeed, you often find, from the stories of the past, even the distant, that we today are not that different from our ancestors (indeed history often repeats itself). The things of today that are very different from the past though, are either very important (e.g. internet), or completely insignificant.
There is one profound difference between memes and genes though. Genes existed long before we did (as noted in The Selfish Gene, we organisms are merely the survival machines assembled by, and at the service of, the immortal self-replicating molecules that we call genes), while we humans are the true creators of the memes (so in a sense, we are the god). (Side note: isn't this a curious example of creating intelligence by meta-programming? That is, the genes are the meta-god? And thus the cosmos the meta-meta-god? OK, enough of that. But still, life from the lifeless, and mind from the mindless! This is far more miraculous than an omnipotent super-being committing genesis by copycatting itself, yet with some serious downgrading, presumably on purpose.) However, the nature's god is not responsible for preserving the creations after the kickstart (i.e. the big bang), and all things are simply left to their own devices (for us living things, the process is evolution). Yet humans seem to consciously try to protect good memes and fight bad ones, although in the end, whatever memes that manage to survive and flourish are what we've got, and the notion of good adjusts accordingly (still waiting for complete ethical consensus, guys. But, on that, really no need to despair there, the world has got many important things quite right, we are on the right track, overall!). So in a sense that might be a bit weird or even haunting, the most powerful memes, or their most powerful trait, is the ability to mesmerize and motivate us humans to defend, disperse, and further develop them. That is, we the meme creators have also become, willingly, their survival machines, and we are in this unique position of playing the dual role of masters and slaves. Is this irony or marvel? Well, what if there is indeed a coherent duality between the two antonyms? Namely, a true master must also be a true slave, it is one thing. See, we don't call the cosmos our master, because it just happened and we are all left alone; but we really did the work to make the memes (otherwise we can't be so distinguished from the rest animals), and thus we really care). (But still, ultimately, what survives in the end may not be what we expect today. We can only hope.)
Now just as the survival machines are "willing" to sacrifice themselves if they "think" that such actions can sufficiently increase the chance of survival for their genes, humans have also sacrificed their lives for various memes. The interesting question is why. We are willing slaves to the genes, because we were built, or (meta-)programmed that way, that we understand. But why are we (at least some of us) so compelled to protect the memes? (Note that even in the case of genes, there are "outliers" who just don't care about preserving the genes in them; so even nature can't do it absolutely reliably, and it doesn't need to - Nature is intelligent, but not obsessive with perfection.)
One way to make sense of this is by going back to the genes, namely, we believe that certain "good" memes will ultimately help ensure, or increase the likelihood of the prospect that our genes will stay in the future. For example, curiosity, especially in the form of scientific exploration, has the capacity to expand as well as deepen our understanding of the world, which is essential for our survival and flourishing. Regardless of whether those "mentally active" members are also directly involved in gene preservation, our society has become sophisticated enough to, along the line of "division of labor", allow some of us to work on more long-term and far-reaching projects, rather than everyone sticking to the naive strategy, that is, reproducing as much as possible. In short, this view is saying that our precious memes are no more than some highly advanced tricks/devices invented by the slaves to better serve the old master. Well, this might sound gloomy, but I guess it's hard to disprove.
However, there are non-gene-centric explanations to this strange motivation. One such alternative concerns the essence of our identity, or the definition of the "self". If our entire body, that is, including the thinking machine of ours, is a mere instrument, or a weapon in an arms race between competing gene groups, then is there anything more to us, within our mental world? To an individual, one surely has the option to think that what defines a person is not the set of genes (identical twins and clones are the proof), but the set of memes carried in the mind, which are either learned to guide the actions, or the products of the actions (namely one's contribution to the meme pool). Albeit a quite popular value held by many (but certainly not all), it still doesn't quite explain why humans would actually value memes over genes (this is not only referring to the extreme cases of bodily sacrifice, but also those who choose meaningful work/career at the cost of reproduction opportunities). Yes, if this unique combination of memes is the identifying essence of a person, that could be enough of a reason to defend it. But rationalizing doesn't necessarily lead to any action for real. So I would like to look at this situation from the vantage point of the entire species. What's up with our passion for memes? For instance, as noted in The Selfish Gene, masturbation is clearly a result of discovering a loophole in the reproduction reward mechanism (and we are not even the only species that have found it). Regardless of whether humans are aware of the gene-slave situation, they have been messing around with their over-powered brain to come up with weird things that hardly contribute to the primary imperative of master-serving. For instance, what if nuclear wars eventually broke up? Oops, survival machines got too heavy-duty? OK, I know, masturbation and atom bombs, not the most romantic of our creativity, but the point is, there are components in our mental activities that are in no intended ways meant to serve our genes. And let me be clear, it's not like we are being devilishly rebellious or mischievous to harm our master, no, not even with masturbation or atom bombs. I am saying, the extra miles we went, along that slave directive, is so special to us emotionally, that we are shaken to the core, even overriding our biological survival instincts. I think it's exactly the extra and special things we did, that not only belong to us truly, and thus define us alone, but we profoundly worship such artifacts of humanity that scream at us that we cannot be just a mere species of machines employed in a molecular game. It is the true religion, the uber-religion that leads to all the cultural religions as well as the passions for sciences and arts. Don't blame us, genes, it is you, our master, who meta-programmed us to, through evolution, tend to be deeply amazed at wonders, and at the same time capable of them; It is this positive feedback loop that has made a freak out of a chimp-like species. We come to realize that every individual life of ours is valuable instead of expendable, and in consequence, what is even more valuable is the good things that we create that can indefinitely outlive us. Hey, isn't this the essential charm of you, our master, to be immortal, yet not stagnant? We have managed to create something just as surreal. We are helplessly attracted to it, perhaps because you meta-programmed us to admire such traits of yours? || Do we really need the best works of Bach and Vivaldi to engage in auditory relaxation? (I mean, music is probably a necessary invention, but the very best of the classical pieces? Look, lots of us seem to get by, or get rather satisfied, with other less extraordinary works.) Now what if this collection of completely unnecessary mental gems that some of us have created is essentially what defines us, the unique identify of us, instead of the role of overqualified chimp-noids helping out with a large-scale self-sustained biochemical reaction (I mean insects or even bacteria are doing a superb job too, arguably much better)? If the recognition of this transcendent collection is sufficiently universal, then we can indeed comprehend the drive for the aspiring to add gems of our own to this species-defining collection. Basically, this view is saying, by creating all those mind-warping memes, we are seeking what is uniquely human (what the rest species of survival machines cannot do, or cannot do nearly as well), even though we came from an old, inglorious root shared with fungi. Plus, so far we aren't even sure we will be the best at the basic task of survival in a global catastrophe: e.g. if a nuclear war broke out, it would most likely wipe us out, but probably not everything else on the planet (which is why some of us are eagerly working towards the capability of establishing off-planet bases of civilization).
Now, there is a third alternative that is even more metaphysical, if you push the above point to the extreme: what if what truly matters in the universe is the memes, that is, the meaning of it all is not the physical, but instead what is encoded by the physical, namely our consciousness, manifested as, for instance, wisdom and love? Just as we'd agree that the ultimate point of inventing computers is not in the manufacturing of all the refined circuits that can store and mutate bits, but in the software, or rather, the emulation of thinking and even living that is supported by the functions of the software. The previous alternative above might be saying that our advanced mental artifacts are merely accidental, an awesome side effect of the arms race between the survival machines, but the genes is still the main show of the universe, in spite of what we want to believe. But what started it all doesn't have to be the main show, right? All great shows need some bootstrapping process, a way to kick-start the dynamics that can evolve a simple system into a fantastic story. So this third alternative is saying, the genes are the mere instruments to get the atoms in the universe to play in a much more interesting way that we call "being alive", for a rather transcendental pursuit ultimately; But as simple instruments, you can't give them sophisticated instructions such as "let consciousness emerge", but only brute ones, such as, just find random ways to replicate yourselves as much as possible (note of course that the instructions are self-embedded upon their formation). Biological life only as the means to intelligence, and introspective consciousness at large, how about that? Universe is so wildly confident in this meta-recipe to create consciousness all from the big bang, our own imagination in comparison is utterly inanimate. (But to be fair, the universe had much more resource at hand than we do, including time, space, and matter.)
OK, but note that genes and memes are not enemies, even though some individuals might pick one over the other. Looking at the big picture, you will see that on the contrary, they help each other, and indeed they need each other. On one hand, with highly advanced memes, genes are vastly more likely to be safely preserved in the future, even in never imagined ways. For example, as a popular sci-fi outlook, humans may find computational ways to "save" and then "load" biological life, where the save format is lossless, and the "loading back to the app" part can even take place anywhere in the universe where the physical conditions are fertile for evolution. Wouldn't that be a life-saver for the genes to have such a meme that is the algorithm of life that can be run at will? LaaS (Life as a Service), how about that? Now on the other hand, as discussed above, memes without living humans may not be of any meaning (although we do hope that they are even without us). That is, as far as we know, humans are still the best vehicle, and more importantly, the best producer of memes. Therefore, by safeguarding genes and lives, memes are doing themselves a great favor, which should definitely include having the "immune memes" eliminate the bad memes that may lead to fatal catastrophes of either physical or mental nature (which includes any meme that motivates humans to murder innocent fellow humans).
Having Known that, whether it is the genes or the memes that are god's ultimate intention is no longer an urgent question. Most likely it is a show of duality. A good feedback loop.
I know, when we use words like "ultimate", "meaning", or "point", things all just become moot and philosophical. But there is a real-world effect from having such a "value", that is, which do we value more, and thus, which are we going to protect more. Is it the genes and their army of survival machines, or the consciousness that is unique to just one species? We don't have to choose, at least for now, because we can afford to take both (also not to mention the human history of treating "minority groups" very differently before and after the dominating group securely established themselves). But it's still possible to imagine a scenario where we come to realize that we either have to destroy ourselves (mainly just our intelligence because without it we are just regular chimps) and let the rest species live, or preserve our consciousness at the cost of all living things (either we still get to live biologically, with purely synthetic food etc, or, we have the only option of living non-biologically ourselves). Now, what are we going to do? In a way, an equivalent question is, which of the two do we think is more precious, or rather equivalently, more scarce in the universe? Note that many people would agree that just based on the vastness of the universe, the existence of alien life forms elsewhere is extremely likely. But intelligent life forms? And our particular consciousness? Not necessarily. Plus, aren't we human-centric by design, just as dinosaurs never gave a damn about the well-being of the little mammals back when they were king?
And this decision is not purely selfish, because without human consciousness, there is a sure expiration date of all the species on our planet (e.g. when the sun expires), but as long as our development continues, there is hope that we will find a way of existence that is independent of the solar system, or even our galaxy. Generally speaking, we have two options. The realist one is to simply find or craft a suitable planet outside the ruined region of the universe, and live on as we used to; but the romantic one, as depicted in many sci-fi works, is to find a way to exist non-biologically. Now of course, the tricky part is how to make sure that this alternative form of existence has at least as much state fidelity and dynamic richness as the biological form. I know, when it comes to the second option, people are often talking computer-based simulations, but it's just impossible to tell if the simulated lives are at least as human as us (e.g. there is still no computable definition of consciousness). I think a more satisfying solution would be a reliable way to prepare for and jump-start another biological evolution in a fertile place that can lead to a species that is at least as human as us.
A related question is, which matters more, the (good) products of human activities, or the activities per se? I mean, it is surely much simpler to represent our works (that is, the memes) and devise ways to keep them safe in the universe, compared to maintain or devise ways to invoke equivalently rich life cycles of a planet. For instance, we one day we've managed to make an indestructible "encyclopedia" of everything of value or interest to us, and let it float in the space, does that mean anything? When Einstein said "equations are for ever", is this only meaningful if humans still exist? I mean, to the aliens more intelligent, relativity is just "duh", and to the less advanced, it's hard to imagine that they can be helped by our discovery. So I guess the memes are just meant for fellow homo sapiens. If we go extinct, so will all the sciences, humanities, and arts.
So, if the universe doesn't care about reading our enlightened words, what is the point? Well, one idea is that we are meant to do something to the universe with the help of our mental sophistication, that ideas such as equations are not the end, but the means to take actions, and "make a difference". Of course, if that led to complete ruin, then it wouldn't be just our species that is a joke, but also the universe itself: imagine a space initially littered with building blocks that can interact; moments later, the whole thing self-destructs, because some particularly nasty interactions have occurred. The sensible story would be, because of some particularly interesting interactions, the universe's fun score rapid increases, and it goes on to live a long, fascinating life.
A few more notes on memes.
Memes cannot live in the void, their existence relies on the human mind, and most likely, human mind only.
Therefore, a very critical set of memes are such that prevent humans from destroying themselves, because, as noted above, that catastrophe would lead to the extinction of all the memes.
Just like genes, memes rely on their survival machines, which are, again, the mental activities of humans. Moreover, a powerful meme will gain a bunch of "helper memes" that are themselves powerful. For example, although general relativity can be most succinctly expressed by a few equations, these symbols alone won't be able to ensure that the meme gets to live on inside a sustainable supply of minds; that's where the books (and other media) that explain the theory to people come to help. Effective education, including the motivational, is what enables such complex, rather inaccessible memes to be carried by generations to come. Similarly, even the most beautiful music compositions rely on skilled virtuosi to keep them heard. And the meme of love, has recruited an endless army of helper memes, such as novels and biographies, so that every one of us is exposed to it, and in real life, that can turn into something very tangible, and it is the actual actions of love that, besides rationality, makes us human. Now, note that a meme cannot just force other helper memes to do the vital work for them, instead, it must attract people and turn them into willing slaves who produce such helper memes. Even for the simpler memes that are self-explanatory or even intuitive, and thus need no helper, it is still necessary for them to appear sufficiently attractive so that people actively seek them, for instance, because of their utility, or aesthetics.
But beyond memes, that is, when concerned with the question of preserving humans (and ideally any other valuable companion species) using a non-biological (e.g. digital) form that has the power to restore some "blueprint" back into life, I think things quickly become wild speculations, and thus I must refrain from further fantasizing.