In regards to your third point: the greatest evolutionary success on Earth, whether measured by pure numbers, biomass, or adaptability to drastic environmental change, is that of bacteria, not multicellular organisms. The reason is simple: it's generally an advantage to be just complex enough to self-replicate effectively and make reasonably efficient use of resources, but not too much more, as complexity is fragile.
There's a variation of your seventh point that's much more significant than the version you posted: sterilizer probes. Given accelerating expansion pushing us asymptotically towards de Sitter spacetime, within any Hubble volume, there is a finite amount of energy usable for work (in the physical sense of work, such as for maintaining life processes) for eternity. Different civilizations spreading throughout space that come to interact necessarily become competitors as long as they value their own even slightly more than the other. This would lead to an inevitable resource conflict on sufficiently large timescales because scarcity of the ultimate resource is inevitable. The ethical choice, then, is to send out self-replicating sterilizer probes to destroy all other intelligent life as early as possible before it has built up in numbers, since you'll be preventing the destruction of a much higher number of lives later on in a resource war. So, taking this argument (not mine; it's been around for quite a while), one can then simply apply a variation of the anthropic principle and say that the very chance you exist almost requires that there are no other civilizations that could have reached us by now, because any such would have with very high probability made you not exist.
