Your criticism of Gabriel is valid only in a certain limited interpretation.
If you allow that we are finite entities in a realm of infinite possibility (and also infinite impossibilities), then we can only ever be aware of a very small subset of reality. Within that subset we will be aware of particular limitations. It seems we have the power to transcend those limitations, and it seems that each time we do so, we eventually bump into the next set of limitations that are inherent to the new (transcendent) paradigm.
It seems mathematically and logically possible that this process could be infinite (and often recursive) in nature.
Thus it does seem possible that we could go on (and on and on) transcending our limitations, only to become aware at some later stage of some new set of limitations.
I am with you.
I am essentially optimistic about our future, however it goes.
The presence of limits is something that for me makes the prospect of indefinite life inviting. The big problem with infinite life would seem to be the potential for boredom. Having infinite potential for transcendence would seem to forestall that possibility.
Our first challenge seems to be to transcend the concepts of markets and money as valuation systems, and to embrace technologies that deliver abundance to all (markets cannot do anything but value abundance at zero).
Interesting times indeed!