Nonexistence is preferable to intense suffering, and I think there are enough S-risks associated with the array of possible futures ahead of us that we should prioritize reducing S-risks over X-risks, except when reducing X-risks is instrumental to reducing S-risks. So to be specific, I would only agree with this to the extent that "value" == lack of suffering -- I do not think we should build for the utopia that might not come to pass because we wipe ourselves out first, just that it is vastly more important to prevent dystopia 

A quick counterargument from the alt-protein side: while $100k to an animal welfare nonprofit might alleviate $100k worth of suffering, it isn't going to lead to a state change unless it is facilitating a permanent intervention that meat producers would not have an incentive to reverse. The same amount of money directed toward innovation in cultivated meat is progress toward a potential nonlinear tipping point that could fully displace factory farming, and I don't think we should take it as a guarantee that alt protein technologies will breach to disrupt the meat market without the right amount of wind in their sails.