I'd say absent some mechanism to keep them sane, an old enough EM couldn't even be considered intelligent, and would only be a danger to the rest of us in that it's a resource drain if we can't stomach euthanasia.
We may or may not naturally have such a mechanism.
By "current human neurological diversity" do you mean staying within what we now consider a sane human (in which case values drift will be limited to what a sane human would value), or do you mean that they're not modding their mind?
My opinion is the same for if you mean that EMs are modding themselves, except for the part about that there might be a built-in mechanism for keeping them sane.
One person, one vote - a fundamental principle of our democratic government. But what happens in a world where one person can be copied, again and again?
That is the world described by Robin Hanson's "Em economics". Ems, or uploads, are human minds instantiated inside software, and hence can be copied as needed. But what is the fate of democratic government in such a world of copies? Can it be preserved? Should it be preserved? How much of it should be preserved? Those are the questions we'll be analysing at the FHI, but we first wanted to turn to Less Wrong to see the ideas and comments you might have on this. Original thoughts especially welcome!
To start the conversation, here are some of the features of idealised democracy (the list isn't meant to be exhaustive or restrictive, or necessarily true about real world democracies). Which of these could exist in an Em world, and which should?
EDIT: For clarification purposes, I am not claiming that democracies achieve these goals, or that these are all desirable. They are just ideas to start thinking about.