@nutella_with_bread Emotions serve an evolutionary function and are linked to survival of the species.
Not having emotions would mean that we aren’t humans at all. We would be stiff emotionless walking forms with nothing to strive for, no goals, no nothing. Just atoms roaming around the surface of the earth. Without emotions we would not form relations. We would not form families, friendships, communities, kingdoms, countries, which would result in no offspring's, leading to our extension. This is a question of perspectives. Human and non-human. With the exception of plants and animals that are dependent on humans for their continued existence, everything else would be better off in some ways if we didn't exist. After a certain point, our impact on the non-human environment is irreparably damaged by our actions. "Better" is worthless without a self-aware intelligence that can reflect on its own actions.
Intelligence that is devoid of emotions will ground to a stop and cease to act. The re would be no sense of wonder, awe, or other emotions to propel us toward a deeper understanding of life and everything around us. Simple answer: No. Because anthropically, this question is meaningless - without emotion, human life is practically impossible, and the foundation for deciding whether it would be better vanishes. The amygdala, insula or insular cortex, and periaqueductal grey, a region in the midbrain, appear to be the three brain areas most strongly associated with emotions.
Without that particular part of the brain, we would have no fear. If we had no fear, there would be no response to the dangers lurking in our whereabouts that could possibly kill us. In fact, if we had no fear. Why would we fear dying or pain? If we don’t fear those, what is stopping the humans from killing themselves. They don’t even have emotions to begin with. So, in conclusion, no. We wouldn’t exist for long and this questions wouldn’t even pop up in our minds in the first place.