Would human extinction be a tragedy?

There are two different scenarios for how human extinction will take place

Question: Would human extinction be a tragedy?
Position‹4 of 4: It depends on the nature of the extinction
Argument: There are two different scenarios for how human extinction will take place

An argument considering the different outcomes of two extinction scenarios

The argument

Not all extinctions have the same results. Whether the end of humanity would be a tragedy cannot be settled without knowing what kind of ending is in question, because what is lost differs from case to case. Consider two scenarios. One where we die due to a pandemic disease which wipes out all humans. One in which we interbreed with space aliens creating a new species. In the first instance, there would be no humans left to wreck the environment, preserve our works of art and literature, or continue to further the understanding of the universe and our place in it. That list is deliberately mixed, setting one harm alongside two goods: the same disappearance that ends our damage to the world also ends the custodianship of everything we have made and the inquiry we have begun. How those weigh against one another is not a question the bare fact of extinction answers. In the second instance, humankind might be extinct, but the new dominant species could inflict more damage to the environment. In which case, human extinction might be a tragedy - not because humanity ended, but because what followed was worse. Alternatively, the new species of half-human, half-alien may have increased reasoning and understanding, in which case some may argue that the loss of humankind would not be a tragedy, since the capacities that made humanity worth preserving would have been carried forward and enlarged rather than lost. The two scenarios point in opposite directions from the same event, and even within one of them the verdict turns on details the scenario does not specify. Without all the details it is impossible to make a comment on human extinction.

Context

It is impossible to say if human extinction would be a tragedy without knowing the circumstances under which we were wiped out.

Premises

[P1]Human extinction could occur in very different ways — for example, a pandemic that leaves no humans, or interbreeding that produces a new successor species. [P2] Whether extinction is a tragedy depends on the consequences of the specific scenario, such as whether art and knowledge are preserved and whether a successor species causes more or less harm. [C] Whether human extinction would be a tragedy depends on the nature of the extinction, and cannot be judged without those details.

Counter-arguments

The circumstances don’t matter. The very loss of the continuation of our species would be a tragedy. The only marker that we were ever here is the continued existence of our species. It is the only imprint left on the earth from our evolutionary forefathers. If humans became extinct, it would be a tragedy for everyone that ever came before us. It would erase their legacy. In as much as we have an obligation to protect the interests of the future generations, we also have an obligation to protect the legacy of those who went previously.

Rejecting the premises

P1: Regardless of the scenario, the very end of the continuation of our species would be a tragedy.