Sankui, I like your futuristic thinking very much! There was some work done in the 70s by a psychologist who worked with a few thousand people in the U.S. and France, conducting “future-life progressions” (vs. past-life regressions) using hypnosis. She died, and the work was completed by a colleague who published a book called “Mass Dreaming.” What I remember is that the congregate data showed the study participants’ answers for what future life on earth would look like fell into 4 distinct categories: (1) those who saw a future in which humanity would be seeking life on other planets, possibly living off-earth, very “space-age” (2) those who saw a very hi-tech future, mechanical and cold and robotic to some extent (3) those who saw the planet being regenerated, re-spiritualized, humans living in harmony with nature and one another, and (4) those who saw lots of “doom and disaster” with illness, dysfunctional systems, perhaps nuclear war after-effects, a lot of bleakness. (All four groups saw a smaller global population.) My own sense reading about it was that the future would probably manifest all four “visions” at least for a while, and indeed, today it seems to be doing just that. Your speaking of extraterrestrials, advancing tech, and “everyone and all flora and fauna in a seamless integral symbiosis,” seems to indicate your futurism includes all of these too (and I would guess that you’re not in denial about the “bleak” piece).
I like your thought about “carving some grooves into the Kosmos in a direction that brings together the whole planet.” I think that anticipatory 3rd-Tier-world work is already being done, but by so very few individuals that the effects are all but unnoticeable. We’re not even at 2nd Tier teal or turquoise yet as a culture or world; still, never too early to anticipate or begin! So your enthusiasm is appealing (to me).
Along with the current-day increased interest in extraterrestrial life and exploration (the Mars Rover, for example), there has also been a marked growing interest in another planetary area, astrology. In fact, astrology and wicca and other forms of neopaganism or earth-and-sky based spiritualities and shamanism as well, are the fastest growing forms of “religion,” outstripping all mainstream forms. This is mostly true for millennials and younger. While there are many reasons for growth in these domains, I personally think it does speak to some kind of foundling vision for the future of the world, one that encompasses a greater wholeness and a greater respect for the interiority of other-than-human life forms. I agree with you that we don’t want to regress to earlier stages of development, but to retrieve from those earlier stages what has not been fully included is part of the integral project, for individuals and cultures as a whole. And, while to “grow upward from the ground” may be the overall direction, plants also “grow down.” In fact, the root systems of many trees and plants–aspens for instance, or the creosote bush (chaparral)–provide the most startling evidence of a singularity or oneness.
Even in shamanism, there is a “lower world” as a cosmological reference point, along with the “upper world” and “middle world” (which, as you may be aware, your experience of relating to/questioning a tree would be considered in traditional/classical shamanism–a middle world experience). I agree totally that shamanic experiences have much to teach us. Traditionally, shamanism would hold that information such as you gained from a tree or a plant is coming from the “spirit” of the plant itself. But the more psychologically-minded might say that this was an imaginal experience, coming from your own unconscious (which can still be highly potent, powerful, and seem to absolutely be the tree speaking). What is interesting is that in fully shamanic cultures, such as the Huichol Indians of Mexico, who have never been “conquered” or Christianized, things have been discovered through shamanic practices that make the “imaginal” seem a questionable explanation, at least in certain situations. The Huichols were incorporating the DNA double-helix form into their yarn art and paintings, and calling it “the source of life” long before DNA was ever discovered. They “saw” the helix in their visions with the help of their animal spirits and the spirit of their sacramental plant, peyote. One could argue, of course, that this was still coming from their own unconscious, but that argument is usually coming from people who a priori discount the reality of spirits, or the interiority of plants and animals, or the ability of humans to “at-one” with non-human life forms. Also, many of the medicinal uses of plants have been discovered by indigenous peoples whose culture is shamanic. Some people say that it was just a matter of trial-and-error to find these medicines, you know, ingest the plant, see what happens. While discoveries through these gross means have undoubtedly happened, I don’t think we can discount the role of subtle states and subtle seeing in true shamanism common to some of these people.
Still others would say that the communication you received from the tree was the result of the interaction itself, between you and the tree; this is more along the lines of maybe what Lovelock hypothesized around Gaia, humans playing the role of the senses and the nervous system for a planet in which all life and elements and such are in some form of communication.
Regardless, I talk to trees and plants too (and get replies) 
.
As for tech, all I will add on that subject is that I recently read an article in the “National Review” in which the writer defined technology “basically and generally…as allowing humans to shape reality in such a way that it conforms to their own needs and desires.” “Starting with the spear and the shelter, technology emerged as a method of taming, cajoling, and coercing nature to bend to the will of mankind…” He cited other writers who claimed the ideology of modernity was to have technology replace nature. While I don’t totally agree with that, there is some partial truth in it, and this is another area where some definite re-examination is in order, the basic question being how can technology now and in the future better exist harmoniously with nature, including human nature. (And the inverse of that, how can human nature better exist with tech? Development, maybe? Which any truly helpful futuristic “machine-minds” would have to account for, don’t you think? But I’ll let someone more knowledgeable than I about AI and such talk to you about those last ideas of yours.)
Glad you’ve joined the conversation! The more the merit.