Oh hell no. I am not going to go to any lengths whatever for you to pick this question apart to its roots.

without humans, the earth would go on as nature would have it. Things would equalize out and nature would balance things, probably better than we do.

gharness, you said: Value is a subjective determination: completely valid to you, but perhaps not so much to someone else. And I got from your statement that you don't believe there has to be a value to all things in this world. I agree with OUC, everything has value, but that value is subjective to each person. You seem to think that just because value is subjective that there are some things that have zero value. Please name something physical and observable in reality that you know has no value to you, so we can pick this question apart to its roots.
I wanted to add one more thing to tie it all together for you. Everything that has a certain value has a point to it (a purpose if you will, and that purpose is as it relates to the valuer), but the question you have to really search for is without that value or purpose assigned, does the object become devalued and cease existing? My answer, it doesn't because its still in reality regardless if someone is there to observe it.

It was a show called "Aftermath:Population Zero" or "Aftermath:The World After Humans". There was a similar show on History Channel called "Life after People" which became a series that explored specific aspects of changes that would happen. Both shows were based on a novel by Alan Weisman called "The World Without Us". As the clip explains, much of what we have created would survive the test of time by much more than a few millenia. Eventually, the only remnant of humans will not be found on Earth, but on the moon since the lunar enviroment isn't as dynamic. I always contemplate that with only fossils as evidence that maybe dinosaurs may have been more intelligent than we gave them credit for, but any evidence for this viewpoint would have been wiped away. (Their small braincases also argues against it, but it is fun to speculate)

Short answer, the earth would exist as it had when humans did not inhabit the earth, just like it exists with us inhabiting the earth as we currently do...I just watched the video, funny, that these people came to my conclusion as well, but then they still add, take care of our planet as if it mattered since the earth is (according to them) robust enough to handle all the garbage and nuclear waste we can throw at it. I think they just proved why environmentalism is wrong when it sacrifices human survival over planetary/animal survival, no?

Subjectivity itself designates awareness, does it not? Yes, I am arguing a philosophical point but as I have stated and written before, all things have at least some value; good, bad and ugly, if only to realize that which is not.

The hole point, I think, IS objectively subjective?...without awareness, there is no value, no purpose, no objectivity nor subjectivity; nothing good bad or ugly, no rights or wrongs, day or night and it matters not if anything exists.

It's kind of a circular argument but this is the corner the leftest have gotten themselves into...Yes/No?

They have had all Conscious Humans scratching our heads over that one....

One might argue that without humans, nature might just destroy itself till there is only one species and that one species would die out too!

Value, as I asked, to WHOM and what? You didn't answer that. If the question has to be asked, it's irrelevant.

Value is a subjective determination: completely valid to you, but perhaps not so much to someone else.

As I implied but didn't state directly above, there does not HAVE to be "a point," and if there is "a point," that point could be different to varying individuals (or any other entity that might be making that judgment). (In this case, the "point" I am referring to is not your "point" that you felt necessary to explain (it wasn't) but this, which I am quoting from your explanation. " otherwise, there would be not point to it.")

And if there's no point to it (as there may not be), then what?

Ah...I see your aiming for a permanent non local quantum entanglement.

Holding hands regardless of the distance between you both...nice.

The point is...it just wouldn't matter without some awareness of it...like who cares if a tree falls in the forest and makes a noise or not if no one is around to hear it.

As to value...every cell in your body has value...so too, everything in existence must have some value otherwise, there would be not point to it.
However, we could argue the opposite in reference to some creatures in our government...laughing.

I am here. So I means I am aware and I care.
I am not here. I don't care.

To be frankly honest, the earth doesn't need us, as we need it, but more to your point, the utter hypocrisy of the video is staggering. We utilize the resource available to us just as the whales, wolves, apes, et al. However, we have become self aware unlike the Dino's, thw last major dominate life form. We haven't even lived as a species as long, so why are this environmental wackos accuse the human race as the destroyer of the earth?

As long as I remain with my wife I would be one very happy camper!

The bigger question is why does the earth (or any planet) have to "serve" value? Is this a requirement to justify its existence?

And..."value" to whom/what?

What about planets that are uninhabited....do they serve a value? Do they have a purpose? Do they need either one? Would they be less "valuable" if we weren't here to observe them in the night sky? What about the ones we can't see?

A few years ago there was a short series of hour long shows on the same subject. I can't remember if what I saw was on National Geographic, Discovery or what.
Here is a condensed very similar to your link something~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri9bA...

I am always reminded by such imaginings of Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six." It portrays the "soul(s)" of such imaginings.