This question is asked about both Earth and the universe. First, I’ll address why we shouldn’t worry about the former and lay out some facts about our planet.

​

It took 3 to 3.4 billion years for bacteria to develop into fish. And that was under the right circumstances.

​

In 1 billion years the sun will be 10% more intense and boil all water away. Most or everything will die. Earth will resemble Venus.

​

In 3.5 billion years the sun will be 40% more intense and melt rock. This will be the beginning of the destruction of the planet. If anything is left it will not survive.

​

So, if all sentient life on earth were to end now, it's very unlikely to form again on this planet because it doesn’t have the time.

​

But even if the planet wasn't going to be destroyed, that's still at least 3.5 billion+ years without suffering, if we were to not invent something to get rid of microbial life.

​

That said, next is some logical points on the two different major possibilities, with both assuming that life would come back or otherwise form elsewhere.

 

1. Some people say earth based extinction is pointless because life can evolve on another planet.

​

If cosmic extinction is not possible, then extinction here on earth happening or not doesn't affect life on other planets. If life on another planet evolves, then that was most likely going to happen even if we're still around.

​

Unless you think that there's a god that would decide to start life on another planet since there’s no longer time left for earth. Then my argument would be that we should protest existence and do it anyways, and the time without life is still good.

​

2. If cosmic extinction is possible, and if matter and life still come back, then it's still worth it because for a long time period it was gone.

​

3. We don’t know if the universe will be recreated. Giving up just because of that unknown doesn’t make sense, since we DO know that continuing the cycle of life will continue the cycle of life.