You said his anecdote wasn't relevant. He never claimed it was a scientific argument. His anecdote demonstrates survivor bias which is 100% relevant to the discussion. You were just too obtuse to recognize it.

I think that's his point! Some people are suggesting OP practically ignores all the dire projections. He's saying that just because we've survived as a species so far doesn't mean one of these real problems could have unprecedented results. Sure, his uncle is still alive. But he's very lucky. Smoking is, in fact, bad for you and kills millions of people.

He's basically illustrating "survivor bias".