I relate my response to your conclusions. Before going into that I would like to say that I assume you care about people and the environment and you want to see a world where peace and freedom are being provided. So don't take my words as a personal offense but as a highly critical standpoint of mine.
Morality doesn't have to be objective. There are ethics and morals in all humans once you are faced with a situation which requires them.
Can we agree on that that you don't want to be punched in your face or killed by another human being? Do you agree that you don't want your things stolen or someone betraying you? Do you find it morally inappropriate when someone is talking bad behind your back and is hurting your reputation? Do you want to be ignored once you are crying desperately on the street looking out for help? Can you stay cool when you see birds miserably dying from an oil pest? Do you feel empathy for a child who is screamed at? What are your immediate responses to the situations I just mentioned?
I would say that humans can say "yes" to those universal ethics and would like to claim that those ethics not only are universal but also protected by law and habit. The fact that those ethics are betrayed does not prove that these ethics don't exist in a very significant matter. They do.
There is no need to look into nature for supporting human basic needs and convictions, I think.
It's not the question what upsets people. The question is what upsets you. Once you can agree on the named moral standards you should live up to them no matter what others do or don't do. It should make you think if there is not agreement inside of you and what that could mean.
The world IS already hyper-connected. All that happens to mankind happens at the same time to you. You are influenced by events like war, natural catastrophes, and climate issues. You may think that you know it all through media and if that information flow would come to an end you would know nothing.
Well, that is not correct from what I experience. You and I are directly influenced by people who - for instance - come from another country and tell their subjective perceptions and stories. You are influenced by your direct surrounding. Transportation, Computation, Consumption. Your (and mine) inability to have control over modernity makes you look at the wrong solution which is more of the same (technology). People are bored to death in this environments of high technology. Funny term is "bore out".
From my point of view - which is more of an organic nature - the connections between all living systems are a matter of fact. Climate, plant and animal (including man) populations, and movements of geological matter are cyclical and highly complex. Human nature is a black box and can never be "known" the same way "consciousness" cannot be defined.
You underestimate humans I think ... maybe yourself, too. You overestimate what computers can do. The "learning AI" is a (nice to play with) fantasy. To have a similar learning ability as a human, a machine would need organs and senses, blood, nerves and cells and DNA. It would need a human body in order to gain the same intelligence as humans have. But until you find that humans need extensions because they are not smart enough to run their lives you will stick to the glorious imagination that machines will make our existence safer and better. Have you heard of the term "learning through osmosis?" I hope you get my idea.
Even if we would be able to build an android my question would be: Why would you want that? Why should I want that? What is your intention?