> which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.

As with so many sociological effects caused by technology and knowledge, there's a tradition of science fiction that deals with this concept. Is a human level AI intelligence human, or something else? If it's something else, does it deserve the same rights as a human? If we uplift a species, do we expand the classification of "human" to cover that as well? What does it mean to be human? We can inch along and slowly change our laws based on the understandings we have right now, or we can attempt to leap-frog that thinking and provide a framework for protecting intelligent species (to whatever degree) and try to take a more holistic approach to this before it becomes a mess. This is a problem we will have to deal with eventually, should we be so lucky to survive that long.

Here's a less extreme (but still wild) scenario: A tribe of neanderthals is discovered. Do they deserve human rights? I could see some not very good things happening in the short time before consensus formed around that answer, but what, really makes neanderthals more deserving than Gorillas, dolphins, cows, or cats and dogs? We, as a species and as nations (mostly, there are exceptions) have been able to punt on this question because it may upset the way we currently function, but we owe it to ourselves to answer why we should care more about a neanderthal than a cow (if we should).