Wait, is there some common belief that "unfalsiable implies false" is correct or incorrect?  I think unfalsifiable implies irrelevant (or at least unknowable), not false nor true.  

Also, there's a big difference between "unfalsifiable today" (these propositions can have a truth value, even if it's not knowable by us just yet) and "unfalsifiable even in theory" (which it's arguable what "truth value" even means").  For many of your examples, we'd not usually use the word "unfalsifiable", just "we can't currently test them, but we can figure out how with a bit more effort".

In fact, most of the time I see it, for propositional rather than value hedges, it IS a deferral of beliefs, rather than backing off from statement to personal belief.  Rarely do I hear "I believe crime is rampant downtown", though I do hear both the direct "crime is rampant" and the reporting-of-hearsay "everyone knows..." or "X said...".  For value statements, like "immigration is morally required", the deferral is rarely to outside authorities, but an acknowledgement of personal opinion, "I believe...".

In any case, where is this hedging discussion happening?  What things are over-discussed?

Note that it could easily be culturally evolved, not genetically.  I think there's a lot of explanatory power in the land=status cultural belief as well.  But really, I think there's a typical mind fallacy that blinds you to the fact that many people legitimately and truly prefer those tradeoffs over denser city living.  Personally, my tastes (and the character of many cities' cores) have noticeably changed over my lifetime - in my youth, I loved the vibrance and variety, and the relatively short commute of being in a city.  Now, I value the privacy and quiet that suburban living (still technically in-city, but in a quiet area) gets me.

More importantly, for many coastal American cities, it's simply not true that people pay a lot to live in the suburbs.  Even in the inflationary eras of the 1980s, a standalone single-family house in an area where most neighbors are rich and value education is more investment than expense (or was when they bought the house.  Who knows whether it will be in the future).

I don't have good answers for the commuting sucks and density correlates with productivity arguments, except that revealed preference seems to contradict those as being the most important things.  Also, the measurements I've seen seem to include a range of circumstances that make it hard to separate the actual motivations.  Living by choice in "the nice" suburbs is likely a very different experience with different desirability than living in a cheap apartment with a long commute because you can't afford to live in the city.  I'd be interested to see same-age, same-family-situation, similar wealth comparisons of city and suburb dwellers.   

Biden not being the democratic nominee at 13% while EITHER Biden or Trump not being their respective nominees at 14% implies a 1% chance that Trump won't be the Republican nominee.  There's clearly an arbitrage there.  Whether it merits the costs (gas, risk of polymarket default, lost opportunity of the escrowed wager) I have no clue.

"value" means "net positive to the beings making decisions that impact me".  Humans claim to and behave as if they care about other humans, even when those other humans are distant statistical entities, not personally-known.  

The replacement consciousnesses will almost certainly not feel the same way about "legacy beings", and to the extent they preserve some humans, it won't be because they care about them as people, it'll be for more pragmatic purposes.  And this is a very fragile thing, unlikely to last more than a few thousand years.

In fact I would prefer that they could get whatever they wanted without involving me, and i could get whatever I wanted without involving them.

Sure, but they can't, and you can't.  They can only get what other humans give/trade/allow to them, and you are in the same boat.  "whatever you want" includes limited exclusive-use resources, and if it's more valuable (overall, for the utility functions of whatever's making the decisions) to eliminate you than to share those resources, you'll be eliminated.

Pretty much, yes.  Total loss of power and value is pretty much slow/delayed extinction.  It's certainly cultural extinction. 

Note that I forgot to say that I put some weight/comfort in thinking there are some parts of mindspace which an AI could include, which are nearly as good (or maybe better) than biologicals.  Once everyone I know and everyone THEY know are dead, and anything I recognize as virtues are mutated beyond my recognition, it's not clear what preferences I would have about the ongoing civilization.  Maybe extinction is an acceptible outcome.