Turns out, people don't find human extinction uniquely tragic

Though we don't know when what could happen, Oxford scientists have estimated that the likelihood of human extinction by natural causes in any given year is one in 14,000.

Now, this is pretty scary as it just considers the possibility of natural calamities, like volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts, and not human-driven catastrophes - nuclear or biological warfare - that seem even more likely.

Just recently, a team from Oxford surveyed over 2,500 people and asked them to rank three possible scenarios from best to worst - no catastrophe, a catastrophe wiping out 80% of all humans, and a catastrophe leading to human extinction.

As one would've expected, the participants deemed no catastrophe as the best and complete extinction as the worst situation.

While the participants deemed extinction as the worst situation, their answer changed when the researchers asked to think about the difference between the impact of each case.

In this case, most of the participants claimed that a mass catastrophe leading to the end of 80% of human life would be more tragic and bothering than the complete extinction of humans.

The researchers claimed participants considered mass catastrophe more tragic as they seemed more focused on the loss of lives and how that might affect those left behind rather than complete loss of life.

The only time they considered extinction uniquely bad was when the researchers claimed that humanity would miss out on a future that would be better than today in every conceivable way.

The fact that humans are more likely to care about complete extinction when there's a possibility of a better future could play a critical role in making sure we don't go down the path of self-destruction.

We can't control when the next asteroid hits Earth, but nuclear/chemical warfare is still in the hands of humans and how we deal with them.