Well, kind of. Life makes everything else relevant, since without life there is no consciousness,and without consciousness, nothing matters since no one can judge or be happy or sad about anything that happens. Without any living the things the universe would mean nothing, since it would not affect anybody's views or emotions
Relevance is defined as "being important to the matter at hand" now this means that it's what you would say is "the matter at hand" which controls the answer to the question.
If the matter at hand is the universe then... No, life isn't relevant. We don't really control the life cycle of the solar systems and we can't really do anything to change it's cycle so in the grand scheme we just aren't relevant.
However, if we make our answer a lot smaller and use the context of the earth then...Yes, life is very relevant. Life sculpts the Earth, one person can design massive cities, another could nuke a country which would permanently scar the planet's face.
I believe that the ability to change and manipulate "the matter at hand" is what makes us relevant.
If you don't hold life as relevant then it makes no sense to hold anything else as being relevant.
Nothing is objectively relevant, but it's hard to imagine any sort of coherent, consistent system of thought that considers anything relevant at all but still doesn't consider life relevant.
Without life we have no means to experience, to achieve, to strive for something better, to face and overcome challenges.
It doesn't matter where life or self-awareness comes from. It is relevant because if it is not then nothing is.
Nope, 16 year olds can barely be trusted to do their homework on time. They cannot work full time in most states, most don't pay taxes, they have little concept of what the real world is like. I barely stand by 18 being the age of voting. Only because they serve in the military do I agree.
The only perspective that makes life relevant is the perspective of the one who asks the question. It makes no difference for everything else. Life has no impact or significance in or for the universe.
Self awareness (reason, consciousness and so on) are mere effects of complexity. The higher the complexity of a system, the more elevated the intelligence is - but that is of no consequence for the universe. The universe is probably (from what we know now) the only thing more complex than a human brain - and yet is not self aware, conscious or intelligent. And it will continue to exist along it natural course regardless life - intelligent or not.
Meaning or purpose in life is only subjective, and can only be formed in the idealistic realm of human thought. Their is no evidence that a higher meaning relevant to all humans exist. Life can only be relevant to our extremely insignificant human affairs, which hold a microscopic amount of relevancy to the entire Universe.
The question is incomplete. "Relevance" has no meaning in isolation; we have to be discussing whether or not life is "relevant" *TO* something. It's the difference between the motions:
"THB: Wolves are not relevant."
"THB: Wolves are not relevant to the biosphere in Yellowstone National Park"
The first motion doesn't really mean anything,