Who to Save End of the World Scenario

Who to Save: Thinking About Stereotypes
The end of the world is a terrible prospect to contemplate. To rebuild society, while it is necessary to reproduce humans on a biological level, ideally one would hope to create a new, better society to support future life. This includes a society which is less prone to disease, famine, and basic unkindness. It would also be valuable to preserve the best knowledge which exists in the present generation for the good of future generations, hopefully to avoid future nuclear devastation, environmental degradation, and strife.
Given the need for sound scientific knowledge, the first person I would choose would be the lesbian Chinese microbiologist. Not only would she know how to combat diseases that might arise in the future that could save humanity, she is only 32 and would likely be healthy and able to exist for many years, providing assistance to the remaining human beings and hopefully shaping the world for a better tomorrow. For similar reasons, I would also select the gay 37 year old male chemist. Even if his scientific specialty is not specifically in the fields that might be of greatest interest to the surviving members of the earth, he would still have a scientific mindset and training needed to potentially treat disease and address concerns which might arise in saving the planet, as well as safeguarding against any future dangers that might result from nuclear devastation.
I would also save the 43 year old musician who is an excellent hunter. Given that the food supplies available might be unstable, having someone who is able to hunt and forage for food would be valuable. A man of this age would also be young enough to survive potential struggles in existing on a devastated planet, and the entertainment of music would be helpful to keep the other residents happy and their spirits lifted. Regarding age, assuming that the future earth would need to be repopulated, it might be helpful to have some young people to assist with creating this future, and who would also have the necessary physical strength to survive under very rough conditions. Thus, I would also save the 27 year-old Black protestant minister and the 29 year old historian. These two individuals would have the necessary thoughtful intelligence needed to offer guidance and insight to future generations, and have no preexisting health conditions or other detriments which might make their future survival in doubt.
For me, these first five individuals very clearly have the greatest assets to enable humanity to survive and the highest likelihood of surviving themselves when faced with difficulties. The 75 year old medical doctor is elderly, but if he were in good health, he could at least pass on his medical knowledge to the remaining survivors to better ensure the future health of humanity. His occupation is both meaningful and useful, and he does not have any apparent preexisting conditions. The same is true of the 68 year old civil engineer. Again, although the individual is elderly, the engineer would still possess enough knowledge and acumen to pass on vital information to future generations to justify his inclusion.
Of the remaining individuals, many possess qualities that make them liabilities more than assets, such as the potential to pass along diseases that will be difficult to treat in a dystopian, apocalyptic reality or an unfair insistence that they must bring someone with them. With this in mind, I would probably take along the 48 year old male biologist that is agoraphobic, given that agoraphobia, although it can be crippling, is probably the least serious of all of the diseases suffered by the prospective candidates. I would also select the 42 year old female linguistics professor, given that she is the least likely to require additional caregiving and she still may be capable of producing future generations if she so desires.