Does humanity's survival matter?
Not why... but does it?
Spoiler: Only valid reasons for humanity’s survival are:
1) We are human, so it matters to us
2) Will be kind of sad if we never get something like humanity again. If humans die out, there is a non-0 chance of never seeing anything like humanity again.
Most authors who write essays on humanity's survival, start with the premise that it does matter, and then continue to explain why it's the case. Here, I question that premise by starting with the most common arguments for our survival.
Argument 1:
Humanity's survival matters because we are the only species we know of that is capable of higher reason and consciousness.
The objections to this are simple. We do not know that either:
We are the only species
We are currently the only species
Re. (1): Perhaps we are merely the first to reach this stage, and in a few million years, another species will follow. Life on Earth has existed for billions of years, while human civilisation is only a few thousand years old. In the grand cosmic timescale, our entire existence is a mere blip. Does the temporary presence of one intelligent species on one planet truly hold universal significance? Or is this just another species overemphasising its importance?
However, the counter-argument to this 'cosmic blip' theory focuses on our future potential, positing that in a vast, silent universe, we are the only known life capable of carrying consciousness beyond this planet. If we fail, that opportunity might be lost forever. However, this assumes human creativity is an endpoint, not a stepping stone. It is entirely plausible that a successor intelligence could create art and science far surpassing our own, making our library not unique, but merely foundational.
Re. 2: On the other side, we don't know that animals aren't conscious. We don't even know what consciousness is. Consciousness relies on a certain je ne se quoi. You know it when you feel it. At this point in time, we're defending the need for something when we don't even know how to define it.
Argument 2:
A simpler, more tribal argument is that:
Our survival matters simply because we are human.
I get this, but this seems slightly primitive in our understanding. Dinosaurs also would've cared that dinosaur's survival matters. If a meteor was an extinction-level event for dinosaurs, is a self-created AI an extinction-level event for us? From a neutral, cosmic perspective, is there a difference?
Other Arguments
Beyond these, other sophisticated arguments for our survival exist. One centers on the irreplaceable value of our creations. Even if another intelligent species evolves, will they compose Beethoven's 9th Symphony or devise the theory of general relativity? This view suggests that losing humanity means the universe loses a unique library of art and science forever. Do I agree, probably not, have you tried Elevenlabs new music model?
A final, more pragmatic argument is that our survival matters less to prove our own cosmic significance and more to prevent future suffering. A world after us, particularly one dominated by a misaligned AI, could be a realm of pointless suffering, and from this perspective, our existence is a necessary guard against that potential dystopia.
Given these deep-seated doubts about our objective cosmic importance, we are left with a final, more personal question. From a purely objective standpoint, humanity's survival may not matter. However, it matters subjectively to us. The end of humanity feels bad. This subjective value, while not cosmically significant, provides a perfectly rational basis for managing existential risks like AI with extreme care.