I think the idea is that the site is meritocracy so e.g. you can see the validity of someone's scientific statements, otherwise anyone could post anything and it might not be so clear what is valid logically or scientifically. I think in general that's a good thing.
However, I have seen neg rep get used in a kind of ugly way during disagreements and arguments. Also positive rep is often given for witty comments rather than scientific know-how. So it's not a perfect system.
I try not to judge people solely on their rep but a neg score might give me pause to consider carefully what someone has said. Likewise I won't take for granted something said by a poster with a high score. Presumably most people here do the same.
And don't worry you are still in the neutral zone and look I'll give you a +1 for a good question