@NotConvinced I know, right?

@SpikeTalon @NotConvinced I like you. Thanks for being rational!

It feels so weird that we live in a world where rational thinking is so rare that I'm compelled to show gratitude to those that can still go there, publicly, in writing.

That does not inspire much hope.

"we are the most intelligent species that has ever existed here capable of solving more problems than all of the others combined."

Unfortunately, humans have also caused more problems than all other species combined. We occupy what appears to be a rare jewel of a planet, the only one we are certain can support us. Instead of treasuring it, humanity is destroying it. In the fact of that, there is no reason to tout human intelligence.

@TheMiddleWay Humans have introduced toxins into the environment that have never been introduced before.
Microbeads have never existed before humans, therefore Earth's ocean life has not evolved to overcome it. [forbes.com]
Earth's oceans have also never had plastic pollution prior to humans.
[ecowatch.com]

But the question was not about whether life in general on Earth could survive this current mass extinction, but whether humans could. That's debatable. I ask the further question of whether humans deserve to survive. Given the damage that has been done and continues to be done just so oil companies can continue to reap profits because they regard their wealth as more important than the rest of the planet, because people continue to eat meat (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/meat-and-environment/), and so forth, I say humanity does not deserve to survive. If the human race disappeared right now, the rest of the animals on this planet would stand a greater chance.

@RRRRComposer Your question asked about the "human species" and there is no doubt that the human species will be around in 100 years. The numbers will be different whether higher or lower and day to day life will be different but as a species, we will still be around.

I understand that your question was simply leading to a deeper discussion but I think it only scratches the surface.

"Deserve" is not an objective term, it is entirely subjective without means to judge any opinion better or worse. What's more so, is that it's a human concept that nature considers irrelevant. A young antelope doesn't deserve to be eaten by a cheetah, but it happens without consideration.

As far as the rest of the animals (other than that baby antelope) it sounds like you're referring to each species and their chances and not each individual animal. Does it count that no matter what humans do the earth and our sun are both finite and any species stuck on this planet will die at some point? Consider a species such as the dinosaurs. If a sentient species had been able to take them (if only in genetic form) to another planet to be born again, would the dinosaurs be better or worse off facing natural extinction versus man-made? It's irrelevant to that species isn't it?

On top of all this, if "deserve" is only a concept that can be distinguished by a sentient species then without one isn't the entire question irrelevant? You could argue that maybe a different species could evolve sentience but would that species do any better than us? As natural evolution determines similar rules for each species based on its environment, is there a reason to think sentience isn't a part of those same rules? Isn't it possible that we're no better or worse than any other species who could evolve sentience?

With all of that and no means to judge the success or failure of humans as a sentient species versus another, are we, the planet, and each other species here with us better or worse off with you throwing in the towel on humans?

@mattersauce To build on your idiom of "throwing in the towel," the fight is not yet over. Imagine a trainer of a boxer performing poorly in a bout and observing, "If you continue like this, you will lose." Well, if humanity continues like this, it will lose, and it will take countless innocent victims in the form of other creatures-- entire species-- with it. I have no problem judging that as reprehensible. Judging a person according to his actions is fair game., and so is judging humanity.

@TheMiddleWay "I presume, you have no such intentions. Why is that?"That is a legitimate question. I see what humans do to animals, so I have decided to devote the rest of my life to helping save as many of them as I can. They do not deserve to suffer as they do.

@RRRRComposer Here's your quote:

"Given the damage that has been done and continues to be done just so oil companies can continue to reap profits because they regard their wealth as more important than the rest of the planet, because people continue to eat meat ([scientificamerican.com], and so forth, I say humanity does not deserve to survive. If the human race disappeared right now, the rest of the animals on this planet would stand a greater chance."

Your thoughts on our future are without evidence and your judgement is useless other than to argue online which seems your only purpose as you bounce back and forth. If you're going to say humanity doesn't deserve to survive and then turn around and say you haven't thrown in the towel then I can't discuss this with you any further because you can't maintain a stance. You should look into politics.