There is emotion involved here, because our language speaks of species as "dying off". Poor widdle species!
But all critters and plants will die. The real question is, do all currently-existing species need to continue to have descendents forever? "Dying off", when speaking of a species, just means "stops having descendents at some point". But big deal. Why is it so important for all extant species to always have descendents? No one can answer that. I would answer it on a case-by-case basis, i.e. we like this or that species because of property XYZ (perhaps something as simple as: "because it's cute"), therefore we wish it to continue to have descendents. But that would insert human judgment into the equation, which is a no-no in the complainers' eyes. Why? Because they are fundamentally anti-human.
You know how it is. When a beaver builds a dam, it’s natural and admirable. When a human builds a dam, it’s destructive and unnatural.
The global warming hysteria is a similar expression of the idea that things must not be allowed to change. The assumption that we live in the best of all possible worlds belies nature’s propensity to upset the order from time to time.
Somalia’s loss is Greenland’s gain. Who’s to say the Greenlanders won’t do a better job with a decent climate than Somalia has done with theirs?
Clearly Homo sapiens caused the caveman extinction. Who do I make out the reparations check to?