A cursory analysis - from the perspective of basic biology - predicts that most humans can be reasonably expected to be interested in sex, fashion, food, money and status - and concerned with THE END OF THE WORLD - not so much. That seems pretty consistent with the actual interests of most people.

People can't have sex, eat food, follow fashion, get money, or raise their status if the world ends. Unless you absolutely refuse to say that a person wants anything at all beyond what they know they want and say they want and frequently think about wanting, it's a trivial inference that most people do not want the world to end, and, given the other things they want, should want to help prevent the world from ending if they can.

I'm confused by this response. Did I say something to imply that humans can only have one aim at a time? I do think that almost all humans would agree that the world being saved is better than the world not being saved, but of course that competes for money and attention with all other goals, both altruistic and selfish. I happen to think that people ought to weight saving the world highly, but I didn't say that in the post you're replying to, I don't think that people actually do weight saving the world highly, and I didn't say that I think people do weight saving the world highly. All I said was that it's important to compute order of magnitude figures before drawing conclusions about existential risk.