Why climate change activism is humanocentric

A few weeks ago, I posted a question asking why it was important that humans continue to survive. A few days ago, I was talking to a few friends on public transport and a thought arose that made itself into the title of this post; namely, that climate change activism is a humanocentric activity.

Think about it: who benefits the most if we manage to successfully mitigate the effects of climate change? Humans do. We retain our primacy as the supreme species on the planet. If we aren't successful, then billions die and, in a worst case scenario, we get thrown back to some sort of pre-Industrial level of civilisation. Certainly, we would lose our ability to influence the environment as much as we do currently.

Climate change activists may argue that they are attempting to save the environment, to save Life in its entirety. But Earth has experienced temperatures far higher than anything being predicted, and Life has still survived. In the last 540 million years, five major extinction events have occurred, one of which, the Permian-Triassic extinction event 251 million years ago, wiped out 90-96% of all species then present. And yet the sheer diversity of Life present today still persisted through it all. And Life will persist through any catastrophic climate change event as well. Humans, probably not as likely. But we're just one species, of one family. In the greater scheme of things, we aren't the most numerous nor the most widespread of species on this planet, so does it really matter if we make it or not?

I mean, if humans are so bad for the environment and all that, wouldn't it actually be better if we all died, thereby saving the planet from our evil artificial corrupting influence?

Of course, climate change activists wouldn't agree with what I've said. They can't admit that they're just as afraid of dying as the rest of us. At least the rest of us don't have to put up a façade about the environment to justify it.