Would human extinction be a tragedy?

This position holds that human extinction would not be a tragedy, contending the world would be better off without us. It draws on the view that humanity behaves like a destructive virus upon the planet, and on antinatalist arguments that bringing new life into existence is itself a harm.

This position holds that human extinction would be a tragedy. It argues that humanity's loss would doom many other species that depend on us, that it would extinguish humankind's vast unrealised potential, and that humans benefit the Earth in ways no other species does.

This position holds that human extinction would be neither tragic nor meaningful, but simply irrelevant. It argues that with no humans left, there would be no one to assign the event any meaning—so the very idea of it being a 'tragedy' would have nothing to attach to.

This position holds that whether human extinction is tragic depends on how it occurs. A sudden, violent collapse differs morally from a slow, peaceful decline, so the manner of extinction—not the fact of it—determines how the loss should be judged.