Yes. I always find it quite odd that so many people say they don't.
I guess people are imagining apocalyptic scenarios from fiction - empty landscapes and only them left in it - but even with nukes the effects are more likely to be localised devastation vs humans elsewhere carrying on living relatively normally.
I also grew up during the cold war, with threats of nuclear disaster and those apocalyptic films and books. I also imagined myself the last person alive struggling to live in utter isolaton.
I've learned how unlikely those scenarios are as I studied public health and read a lot about plagues, and history, and anthropology. Humans have survived (though societies may change) many wars, plagues, environmental disasters etc. Archeology and then recorded history demonstrate that people carried on living their lives even when large sections of the population died.
The Black Death killed over 50% of people in Europe, but in the scale of human history it is a blip. Those who did not die carried in living, and we now read the survivors accounts in our history books.
The movie scenario of a single lonely wanderer is not very realistic. Short of a planet-destroying calamity (highly unlikely) the human species would survive. Even if 99% of the global population was wiped out (highly unlikely) there would still be 83 million humans on the planet.
The human population was much lower in prehistory, and life was never so brutish and short that people didn't enjoy art and music and making homes for their families. There was still joy, even in the darkest times.