Yes, yes I do. We're doing incalculable damage to animal life (e.g., disrupting birds and insects which are essential pollinators for plants). This is but one facet of the crisis that our species has inflicted upon the planet.

The real problem is that the disruption to animal life will eventually affect human lives too, so you don't really have to choose.

That's not what makes the problem "real" at all, even though you're technically right.

But why is that a problem? I do not disagree with you about the crisis (at all!), but the only reason we care is because we're human beings - because we defined this to immoral and also because it endangers human (and other) beings lives. IMO, I find it makes very little logical (and frankly also moral) sense to say as a human being that wildlife conservation is more important than the lives of other human beings.

I know you're not saying quite the same, but this reminds me a bit of an "unpopular opinion" I came across once, which stated that people must die because there are too many people living on earth...

(edit: formatting)

In this scenario, the choice seems obvious. Humans can make informed decisions regarding their safety and apply measures to mitigate dangers, while wildlife affected by those lights can't.