> The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives
Simple question: do you concede that in some cases keeping the natural habitats as they are might be worse than changing them, in terms of loss of life over the long run? If I can't get a yes or no on this, I don't think there's much point in continuing the conversation.
It depends, if it's the last liveable place on the planet and our species survival depends on it it's a no brainer.
If it's to make some grapes so Canada can make more shitty wine while causing irreversible damage to the local wildlife and causing even worse desertification and other environmental changes in the future then no.
There is no black and white, yes and no, good or bad, I don't understand why you are continuing to form these dycohomotic arguments I honestly suspect you are simply trolling at this point.
The question of "are there any circumstances under which ..." is dichotomy. The circumstances either can conceivably exist, or it cannot. And I still haven't gotten an answer from you, so I guess there's no point continuing.
No, I'm not trolling.
It's an utterly pointless question, it's like asking can something happen that you could never predict? this is pretty quasi rhetorical question which has absolutely no value or argument behind it.
Yes by not destroying some natural habitat and causing the white tailed ferret to go extinct humans might bring their own extinction because in 3048 they are going to become the natural carriers of the Z virus bringing the oh so anticipated zombie apocalypse.
But meantime in the real world from what we know so far from both research and experience negatively affecting the environment causes negative effects on the human civilization.
Desertification can cost us anywhere between 25 to over 50% of the global arable land over the next 50-75 years.
The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives, if only by denying future generation from being able to visit them. We gain nothing from destroying them in the long run, many of them even if they are deserts can be natural barriers to desertification, and again there is no dichotomy in this case I'm really having hard time trying to uncover any argument you might be attempting to make.